- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20396 WP No. 16610 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16610 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KAIZEN ENTERPRISES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI NADEEM N LATIF AGE 43, OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O PLOT NO. 58 REVENUE SURVEY NO. 552 VILLAGE KANABARGI, TALUKA AND DIST. BELGAUM, KARNATAKA - 590 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ICICI BANK REGIONAL OFFICE RAJWADA CHOWK SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA 416416 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION NOTICE FOR CONDUCTING AUCTION DATED 26.05.2025 BEARING NUMBER AUCIB/2025146/293066575/033905005959, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20396 WP No. 16610 of 2025 OF SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 READ WITH RULES 8(6) AND 9(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULE, 2002 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the respondent files a memo. He submits that the auction proceedings have not concluded due to absence of bidders. He further submitted writ petition is not maintainable as substantial remedy is available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they intend to settle the matter. 3. Memo is taken note of. In the light of the stand of the respondent, petition is disposed of as not calling for adjudication. 4. All contentions of both the parties kept open. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20396 WP No. 16610 of 2025 5. It is to be reiterated once again that the substantial remedy is before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7