- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42765 WP No. 8453 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.8453 OF 2020 (GM-KSFC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.L. PREMACHANDRA S/O. LATE. K. LINGAPPA, R/AT HOUSE MH NO.6, 8TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, KAMKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE NO.13, 13/1, 8TH CROSS ROAD, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570009, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAYAKUMAR G.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42765 WP No. 8453 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 04.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, this Court, vide order dated 29.06.2020, passed the following order: " Issue emergent notice to respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submitted that petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs within a period of four weeks pursuant to communication dated 04.06.2020 (Annexure-F). Petitioner is permitted to deposit Rs.5.00 lakhs with respondent – the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, subject to result of this petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42765 WP No. 8453 of 2020 Respondent - the Karnataka State Financial Corporation is directed to maintain status-quo pursuant to Annexure-F communication dated 04.06.2020 till next date of hearing. List this matter on 30.07.2020." 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent - KSFC that the interim order passed by this Court is not being obeyed by the petitioner. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. Vs. SBI' reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, at paragraph Nos. 24 and 26, has observed as below: " 24. An order passed by a competent court— interim or final—has to be obeyed without any reservation. If such order is disobeyed or not complied with, the court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merits. We are not unmindful of the situation that refusal to hear a party to the proceeding on merits is a “drastic step” and such a serious penalty should not be imposed on him except in grave and extraordinary situations, but sometimes such an action is needed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42765 WP No. 8453 of 2020 in the larger interest of justice when a party obtaining interim relief intentionally and deliberately flouts such order by not abiding by the terms and conditions on which a relief is granted by the court in his favour. ************ 26. That, however, does not mean that in each and every case in which a party has violated an interim order has no right to be heard at all. Nor will the court refuse to hear him in all circumstances. The normal rule is that an application by a party will not be entertained until he has purged himself of the contempt. There are, however, certain exceptions to this rule. One of such exceptions is that the party may appeal with a view to setting aside the order on which his alleged contempt is founded. A person against whom contempt is alleged must be heard in support of the submission that having regard to the meaning and intendment of the order which he is said to have disobeyed, his actions did not constitute a breach of it." 4. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the petitioner herein, has not obeyed the undertaking given before this Court, as per the order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42765 WP No. 8453 of 2020 29.06.2020, I am of the view that, equitable relief sought for by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be granted in this Writ Petition. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending I.As. are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3