- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 29185 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIMALA W/O T K RAJU AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/A NO 18 98 THITAMARANAHALI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUKA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562160 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 2. SHRI UMASHANKAR T R S/O T K RAJU AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC AGRICULTULRE R/O NO 118 98 THITAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUKA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562160 3. SMT SHWETHA T R D/O T KK RAJU AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC AGRICULTULRE R/A NO 188 98 THITAMARANAHALI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUKA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562160 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF MANAGER / AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK KOF ILNDIA R/A NO 2911/4-10 B M ROAD CHANNAPATNA DISTRICT RAMANAGAR PIN CODE 562160 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDARA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE DATED 08.09.2025 BEARING NO. REF. OR/E- AUCTION/92/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER RULE 8 OF SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 VIDE ANNEUXRE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have availed a loan from the respondent, and they are aggrieved by the E-auction notice dated 08.09.2025 issued by the respondent. This Court must observe that the respondent's impugned notice dated 08.09.2025 and the present proceedings are after earlier writ proceedings. The details of the earlier writ proceedings are: I. IN W.P.No.30489/2020: The petitioners have impugned the sale notice dated 28.06.2024 issued under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] contending that they have submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement [OTS]. This Court has disposed of this petition on 13.11.2024 calling upon the respondent not to take any precipitative action if the petitioner submits a proposal for OTS along with a deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 II. IN W.P.No.30586/2020: The petitioners have filed this petition calling in question the order dated 11.09.2024 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and this petition also stands disposed of by the order dated 13.11.2024 because of the order in W.P.No.30489/2024. III. IN W.P.No.30526/2024 The petitioners have filed this petition for directions to the respondent to consider their proposal for OTS. This petition also stands disposed of by another order dated 13.11.2024. IV. IN W.P.Nos.4343/2025 and 30509/2024 These petitions are filed calling in question the decision to reject the petitioners' request for OTS and for seeking the details of the respondent's policy on OTS settlement. This Court has disposed of the petitions in the following terms observing if the petitioner deposits Rs.10,00,000/-, the auction shall - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 be deferred. The material part of this order reads as under: "13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank would vehemently object to any 'such direction being given on the score that the petitioners seek finance of Rs.70.00 lakhs, comes forward to the Bank by giving a proposal for OTS of Rs.40.00 lakhs, not even the principal amount. Therefore, there was no option to the Bank, but to reject the offer of OTS. She would further contend that the scheme of OTS, which the petitioners seek to place reliance upon was subsisting only up to the end of the financial year of 2022 and is no longer in subsistence. The OTS is considered by the Bank on a case-to-case basis now. 14. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the Bank to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of an OTS, it should not be construed as a positive direction. It is only a direction to consider in terms of the extant guidelines/scheme/policy or the manner in which the Bank would consider cases for grant of an OTS on a case to case basis." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 2. Mr. Santosh P. Pujari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Divya Purandara, the learned counsel for the respondent, are heard on whether this Court must intervene with the proposed auction in the light of the petitioners' case that they are agriculturists and the respondent's case that the offer to pay Rs.47,00,000/- under OTS cannot be accepted because the dues are over a Crore of rupees. The respondent has rejected the petitioners' request in the light of the dues and the amounts that will have to be written off if the offer is to be accepted. 3. This Court is of the view that the petitioners must necessarily avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and not repeatedly approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when they have such alternative remedy. This Court must, in this context, refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Celir LLP v. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38368 WP No. 29185 of 2025 Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1209. 4. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act observing that any outcome in the auction should be subject to the outcome in the proceedings that the petitioners may avail under Section 17 thereof over the next four [4] weeks. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB