- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7595 WP No. 34978 of 2024 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. 34978 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. GODHA KRISHNA PRASAD H.V, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M/S KRISHNA P.G, NO. 116/2-1, HOUSE NO.116 AND 116/5, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 3, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018, REPRESENTED BY IS AUTHROSIED OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. LOKESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE BEARING NO. BCCB/AO/SARFAESIA/81/2024-25 DATED 07.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE SECURITY INTEREST RULES 2002 AT ANNX-A AND ETC., Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7595 WP No. 34978 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER When the matter come up for preliminary hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had filed a memo along with a communication dated 24.01.2025 purported to have been made by the Chief General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India regarding the restructure of the loan account of the petitioner. It was pointed out that directions were issued to the respondent-Bank to alter the loan structure as discussed for fee disbursement and notify the authority, who had made the communication. Learned counsel had made a statement that the matter may be taken up during the second week of February, 2025, after the appearance of the respondent-Bank 2. On the very next date of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank appeared before this Court and on instructions it was submitted that no such communication dated 24.01.2025 was received the respondent-Bank. It was also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7595 WP No. 34978 of 2024 submitted that false information was placed before this Court and interim orders were obtained. It was pointed out that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18371/2023, and the petitioner had undertaken to deposit Rs.96 Lakhs within a period of four weeks, but such an undertaking was not complied with by the petitioner, and in light of the breach, the interim order was vacated. However, while disposing of the writ petition a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that she was ready with a cheque for a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs. Nevertheless, the writ petition was disposed of on 27.3.2024 directing the petitioner to regularize the account by paying the entire balance amount within a period of eight weeks. It is also directed that if the petitioner does not regularize the account, it was open for the respondent-Bank to take action and continue the proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.27881/2024. Interim orders were passed by this Court taking note of the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the petitioner will be permitted to take away the movable property and the same shall not be construed as delivery of physical possession. It was directed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7595 WP No. 34978 of 2024 that the respondent-Bank shall not take any coercive steps to take possession of the subject property, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.1 Crore within ten days from the date of the order, i.e., 16.10.2024. It was submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the directions issued by this Court. 3. On the previous occasion, learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that he will personally find out as to whether the document submitted at the hands of the petitioner were genuine and whether such a power was vested with the chief General Manager of the RBI who issued such communication to the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel had also undertaken that if it is found that the information tendered by the petitioner were not genuine, this Court may proceed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the information tendered at the hands of the petitioner did not pertain to the respondent-Bank. That was an information or communication made by the Chief General - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7595 WP No. 34978 of 2024 Manager of the RBI to ARMS (Assets Re-construction Company) and not to the respondent-Bank. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed while imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner payble to the Karnataka Advocate’s Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks from today. Acknowledgment for having paid the costs shall be filed in the office. In view of the disposal of the main matter, pending IA's are disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv CT: BHK