- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7635 WP No. 103 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.VISHAKANTE GOWDA S/O LATE KENCHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SMT.SARASWATHI W/O SRI VISHAKANTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BOTH ARE PRESENTLY R/AT NO.176, NO. 139, MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE MYDANAHALLI (P), YELAVALA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHOWDAREDDY T. M., ADVOCATE) AND: CAN FIN HOMES LTD., ANNAPOORANESHWARI COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK BGS ROAD, BIDADI REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER PIN-562109 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY D., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7635 WP No. 103 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO PROVIDE THE LOAN DETAILS AS SOUGHT IN THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25.06.2024 AS PER ANNX-J AND ALSO REPRESENTATION DTD. 22.10.2024 AS PER ANNX-T AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO REDELIVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONERS WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Counsel Sri. D. Narayanaswamy, has entered appearance for the respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.17191/2024 aggrieved of the Sale Notice dated 25.02.2024, issued by the respondent-Bank. Interim orders were passed directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. However, a memo for withdrawal of the Sale Notice was filed at the hands of the respondent-Bank and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of on 22.07.2024 stating that there are disputed question of facts, which are not capable of being - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7635 WP No. 103 of 2025 adjudicated upon in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to take recourse of such remedies as available in law including approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed S.A.No.491/2024, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru and the same is pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’, for short). In the meanwhile, on 16.10.2024, the respondents have illegally entered the residential premises, removed movables and have taken possession of the property. The prayer in the writ petition is therefore to direct the respondent-Bank to provide loan details as sought in the representations dated 25.06.2024 and 22.10.2024 and the other prayer made in the writ petition seeks redelivery of the possession at the hands of the respondent-Bank. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank however submits that the secured assets were auctioned on 13.09.2024 pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 07.08.2024 issued by the respondent-Bank and sale was confirmed on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7635 WP No. 103 of 2025 13.09.2024 and the Sale Certificate was executed and registered on 09.10.2024. The successful bidder has been put in possession of the property. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that since the petitioner is already before the DRT, the writ petition may be disposed of directing the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the DRT. 4. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioners are already before the DRT, they were required to file necessary application before DRT to redress their grievance and a subsequent writ petition cannot be maintained. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL