- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45077 WP No. 32211 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 32211 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. IQBAL AHAMED IBRAHIM S/O. HAJI AHAMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO. 12/59, NISHI BAGH, BAPPANADU, MULKI, MANGALORE - 574 154. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHITHRA NIRMALA P, ADVOCATE) AND: AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S. MAHALAKSHMI CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, KALMANJE TOWERS, LBS MARG, AJJARKAD, UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45077 WP No. 32211 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 DATED 14.10.2025, ISSUED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT BANK, MAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SURATHKAL BRANCH, UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45077 WP No. 32211 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court that in view of the facts and grounds mentioned above, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: a) Set aside the order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 14.10.2025, in C.Mis.No.198/2025 issued by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, in favor of Respondent Bank, Mahalakshmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. Surathkal Branch, Udupi vide “Annexure-H”, in so far as concerned petitioner only. b) Issue directions to the Respondent Bank not to take physical possession without considering the pending One Time Settlement Offers dated 09.07.2025 and 12.07.2025. c) Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant, including cost of the case, in the view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had obtained the credit facility from the respondent/bank for the purpose of applying for tender in MESCOM and paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards EMD for the tender floated by MESCOM. However, the tender process could not be completed, resultantly, EMD of Rs.50,00,000/- which had been paid out of the credit facilities obtained by the petitioner from the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45077 WP No. 32211 of 2025 respondent/bank was held up with MESCOM. Thereafter, the bank had issued a demand notice dated 13.12.2024. It was only given to the petitioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner suffered from Acute Exculpation Asthma viral pneumonia and was admitted in the hospital. Due to this reason, the petitioner suffered a lot both personally and also financially because of which the petitioner could not maintain the business. The petitioner had made request to the bank and the respondent/bank without considering the request of the petitioner, had proceeded with issuance of the possession notice dated 07.04.2025. The petitioner had repaid amounts to the bank which were not properly adjusted towards the principal loan amount. The respondent/bank went on adding interest on calculating interest on the entire loan amount without deducting the amount repaid from the total outstanding amount and arrived at a wrong figure of Rs.78,72,169/-. A possession notice was issued on 07.04.2025. It is stated that he had also requested for OTS settlement and gave a letter on 12.07.2025. It is submitted that the proposal for settlement is under consideration. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45077 WP No. 32211 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction to the respondent/bank to consider his representation for one time settlement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank submits that earlier, W.P.No.13686/2025 was filed questioning the possession notice dated 07.04.2025 and it was submitted before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that 20% of the outstanding amount would be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of order. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had disposed of the writ petition by order dated 09.06.2025 observing that leaving it open to the petitioner to have the grievance adjudicated according to the scheme provided for under the SARFAESI Act. In the light of the undertaking of the petitioner, the respondent shall not take any further precipitate action for a period of four weeks from the date of order. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy and the writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. Now again, this writ petition is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45077 WP No. 32211 of 2025 filed where except the OTS proposal, no new facts are stated. When the earlier writ petition was disposed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by giving liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also had passed an order directing the respondent/bank not to take coercive steps till four weeks, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the instant writ petition by suppressing the facts. A litigant, who come before the Court with suppression of facts is not entitled for any relief from this Court. That apart, the earlier writ petition has been disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. On these counts, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 5 Sl No.: 22