- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13714 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SHREE MANYU EDUCATION TRUST, A TRUST AT NO. 1545/4- 1, LAAYADA BEEDI, FORT, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA - 562 160, REPRESENTED BY IT'S TRUSTEE/SECRETARY: M.K VIJAYASIMHA, REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT 1882 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IYER BALAJI HARISH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913, AND REGISTERED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PB NO. 599, MAHAVEERA CIRCLE, KANKANADY, MANGALORE - 575 002, CONCERNED BRANCH OFFICE AT SREE GURU Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 KRUPA, NO 2240, 1ST CROSS, OPPOSITE TO BSNL OFFICE, BM ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMNAGARA - 562160, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AND ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH OFFICE AT KARNATAKA BANK BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, WARD NO 29, MARALURU EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGARA, TUMKUR - 572 105. 2. NARASIMHA MURTHY N, S/O LATE NARASIMHA PROPRIETOR SWAMY, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF BESTNEST CONSTRUCTIONS, A/A 53 YEARS AS ON DATE, R/O NO 49, LAKSHMI SOUDHA, ESHWARI BLISS LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGGALIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 116, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. ABHAY PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 26.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "a. Quash the e-auction notice dated 26.03.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent; ANNEXURE-L. b. Order and direct the 1st Respondent to include the details of possession of the Schedule Property by the Petitioner in any further auction/e-auction notice that the 1st Respondent may issue with an added condition that the Petitioner is to be allowed to continue to operate from the Schedule Property; c. Grant such other orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Trust established through a Trust Deed executed and registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 on 29.06.2011 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Channapatana Town, Ramanagara District. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the property. Respondent No.2 has leased the property to the petitioner on 04.05.2023. Respondent No.2 had availed loan from respondent No.1/Bank and has defaulted in repayment of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 the same. Consequently, the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). 3. It is stated that on 05.04.2025, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.1 had issued an e-auction notice dated 26.03.2025 in respect of the schedule property, from which the petitioner-Trust is presently operating its Institution. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Bank did not issue any notice to the petitioner and that the said e-auction notice also fails to disclose the fact that the institution is being operated by the petitioner from a portion of the property is said to be auctioned. 4. The petitioner approached the Bank on 07.04.2025 by submitting a written representation requesting the Bank to modify the auction notice by incorporating the fact that the petitioner is in legal possession of the schedule property and to include a condition permitting the petitioner to continue operating the Institution from the said premises even in the event of sale. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 5. It is a grievance of the petitioner that, the petitioners concerns were not addressed by the respondent bank, which compelled him to come before this Court. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 02.05.2025, granted an interim order of stay as prayed for, till the next date of hearing. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that, in view of the said order, the Bank could not conduct the auction on that day. It is submitted that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of auction notice or he has any enforceable right the remedy available to him is to approach the DRT but he cannot come before this Court. 7. It is submitted that the alleged rental agreement is unregistered one. Without any legal right, the petitioner could stall the proceedings from 02.05.2025 onwards. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to a notice. It is further submitted that if the respondent/Bank proposes to conduct the auction on a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 subsequent date, they should follow the procedure prescribed under law while conducting such auction. 9. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner is a tenant and respondent No.2 is the borrower. As respondent No.2 committed default in repayment of the loan, respondent No.1/Bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the proceedings initiated by the Bank, he has an effective and alternate remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In this case, the petitioner lease is an unregistered lease deed. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has any legal right to enforce, the appropriate remedy lies before the DRT. 10. The present writ petition is filed questioning the e- auction notice. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the e-auction could not take place. Hence, the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52450 WP No. 13714 of 2025 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, in accordance with law, in the event of any future auction is conducted by the respondent–Bank. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15