- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28848 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. MUNIGANGAPPA M S/O LATE SRI NEERAGATIMUNISWAMY AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.1730, SANTHRUPTHI 6TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560065 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE BHARAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD REGISTERED UNDER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NO.30, 15TH CROSS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K V LOKESH.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RESTRUCTURE THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AT ANNX-L GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE STEPS IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED. 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:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts that he is a practicing advocate who has also worked as a Government Pleader with this Court. The petitioner has availed a home loan from a third party [an institution], and the petitioner has defaulted owing to difficulties because of the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent has taken over the defaulted loan from such institution extending to the petitioner a loan facility of ₹70,00,000/-. 2. The petitioner has defaulted again, and the respondent has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] issuing the Possession Notice dated 30.09.2022. The petitioner has called such order in question in WP No.18960 of 2022. This Court had granted interim order on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 17.07.2023, but the petition is disposed of later calling upon the respondent to regularise the loan should the petitioner make payment of the requisite sum within six weeks. This Court has also observed that if the petitioner fails to pay the amount due, the respondent will be at liberty to take coercive measures. 3. The petitioner, as is asserted by the respondent, has offered no amount, but he has applied for restructuring of the loan, and the respondent has rejected such request. As such, the petitioner has filed the present petition. This Court has granted different interim orders beginning from 20.12.2023, and the details of these orders must be mentioned for the disposal of this petition. These details are as follows: 20.12.2023: A direction to the respondent not to take any coercive measures qua the petitioner's property subject to the condition - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹2,00,000/-. 05.12.2024: Though this Court has not extended the interim order, it is observed that if the petitioner deposits the arrears of the loan as of such date, his request for restructuring of the loan can be considered. 04.04.2025: The interim order is reinstated to be in force till the next date of hearing. 07.04.2025: With the petitioner stating that a sum of ₹2,00,000/- has been paid and that the respondent has issued the sale notice dated 19.03.2025, the interim order is granted staying the operation of the sale notice dated 19.03.2025. 29.04.2025: With the respondent contending that though the outstanding is substantial and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 only a sum of ₹2,00,000/- is paid, with default on EMI as recorded on the previous hearing dates, this Court has observed that the petitioner shall continue to pay equal monthly instalments during the pendency of the petition while extending the interim order granted earlier. 4. The petitioner has the benefit of these orders but with this Court, on 28.07.2025, observing that he cannot be entitled to the continuation of the interim order if there is a failure to offer EMIs as required by this Court's order dated 29.04.2025. However, the petitioner is extended a final opportunity to take a stand with a further opportunity on 01.08.2025 to file an affidavit. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in terms of this liberty. The petitioner has stated that because of the demise in his family and the responsibilities of having to take care of the children of the bereaved, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 the petitioner cannot pay any sum more than ₹50,000/- as EMIs, and if there is restructuring accordingly, he will continue to pay ₹50,000/- every month. 5. Smt. Shilparani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues to support the disposal of the petition relying upon the afore and seeking directions to the respondent to restructure the loan. Sri K.V. Lokesh, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that his instructions are that the respondent cannot accept this offer because the petitioner has to pay over ₹54,00,000/- as of today, but if this amount is tendered, the petitioner's EMIs can be restructured. The learned counsel submits that the respondent's right to initiate recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is constrained for the last two years as against a receipt of only ₹4,00,000/- and odd. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 6. These circumstances present the backdrop for the decision, and this Court is not persuaded to issue direction to the respondent, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to restructure the petitioner’s loan as such decisions must generally be in the respondent’s exclusive domain as per the extant guidelines. Further this Court is of the view that if there is any default on the respondent’s part in availing a remedy contrary to the guidelines, it must be considered under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as it would require an inquiry into factual circumstances. 7. The petitioner must therefore be relegated to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act while recording the Supreme Court's often reiterated requirement for circumspection and restraint in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. This Court must also observe that all questions, including whether the petitioner is entitled to seek exclusion of time spent in prosecuting this petition, must be considered in such proceedings. The ancillary question is, should the petitioner be granted some reprieve with the pendency of the present petition and the benefit of interim orders that have been for the last two years? 8. The petitioner has offered his residential property, and it is now placed on record that after the possession notice, which is impugned in WP No.18960 of 2022, proceedings are initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to recover possession. These circumstances demonstrate that there could be imminent dispossession, and that need not be, as the petitioner will have to have a reasonable time to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act after collating all the details. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 immediate dispossession would visit the petitioner with hardship and render his remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act nugatory. 9. In the facts of this case, this Court must also consider the efficacy of the orders that may be under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to recover possession. This Court finds that the efficacy of such order is blunted with passage of time and the pendency of these proceedings, and that the respondent, because it is settled that any order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would only be an order for extending assistance to recover possession and not an adjudication order, must be at liberty to apply afresh and not be precipitative on the orders that are already passed. In the light of the afore: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34843 WP No. 28848 of 2023 It is observed that all questions, including whether the petitioner is entitled to seek exclusion of time spent in prosecuting this petition, is left open to be considered in such proceedings. [B] While observing that the respondent must have recourse to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for assistance to dispossess the petitioner after causing a notice to the petitioner, the respondent is directed to issue intimation of the decision to avail assistance under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, but is called upon not to take any precipitative action for twelve weeks [12] from today. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1