- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28590 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT KAVITHA M W/O MANJUNATH AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS E-29 MILK DAIRYROAD GS PALYA ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE 560100 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANDHYA U. PRABHU.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA CHANDRAPURA BRANCH A N R COMPLEX ANEKAL MAIN ROAD CHANDRAPURA Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 BENGALURU 560081. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.DIVYA PURANDAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE SALE NOTICE DATED 02/09/2025 BEARING NO.OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/ 367/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N; B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/08/2025 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is admittedly a defaulter in the repayment of a home loan availed from the respondent. The respondent has declared the petitioner’s home loan as NPA way back in the year 2020 during the COVID-19 period. The petitioner will have to pay a total sum of Rs.80,00,000/- and other charges if the respondent has to defer proceedings to enforce its interest in the secured asset [an incomplete residential building] under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act']. 2. This writ petition is after the proceedings with the DRT under the SARFAESI Act with the CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 petitioner calling in question the Sale Notice dated 06.08.2025. The DRT has disposed of this application on 29.08.2025 as having become infructuous as the sale is not held. The petitioner's cause for the present petition, as canvassed by Ms. Sandhya U. Prabhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is the immediate action on 02.09.2025 by the respondent to re-notify the property to sale, and the learned counsel submits that after the DRT's order in the afore application the petitioner has caused the letter dated 30.08.2025 under the acknowledgment making a request for regularization emphasizing that a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was paid during the pendency of the application. 3. Ms. Divya Purander, a learned counsel who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, submits that if the outstanding is Rs.80,00,000/- plus other charges, even for regularization, the petitioner will have to pay over - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 Rs.30,00,000/- and therefore, the respondent cannot accept the request for regularization. The learned counsel also asserts that for justifiable reasons the respondent also cannot accept the request for OTS, and as such, the decision to re-notify the sale to be held on 26.09.2025 is reasonable. 4. The question: whether the petitioner's grievance must be examined in the light of what has transpired within three days between 29.08.2025 and the date of the impugned notice of sale [02.09.2025] and if there can be intervention by this Court, the terms of such intervention? If the petitioner has sought for either regularization or OTS, especially after the proceedings with the DRT, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent, without being immediately precipitous, should have responded in writing on the amount to be tendered for regularization and the absence of such response shows a haste and a decision to constrain the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 petitioner rather than enforce the secured asset. When queried in the light of this opinion, Ms.Sandhya U Prabhu submits, on instructions, that this Court must permit the petitioner two months to pay the amount now mentioned as payable for the regularization of the loan. This submission is also considered, and hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to defer the scheduled sale until 31.10.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to offer the amount as indicated in the present proceedings and the further amount that may have to be paid for regularization of the loan. [B] This Court must also observe that if there is any failure by the petitioner despite this opportunity, the respondent will be at liberty to have recourse to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and if the respondent has such recourse, the petitioner must - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 necessarily avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SMT KAVITHA M VS. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER] 24.10.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is listed at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed a memo for ‘Being Spoken To’ contending that there is an error in this Court’s Order dated 25.09.2025 in mentioning 31.10.2025 as the date by which the petitioner must avail the liberty to pay the requisite amount for regularization of the loan. However, on perusal of the record, this Court must opine that there is no error, and the petitioner is only allowed time till 31.10.2025. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this Court's order dated 25.09.2025 the respondent has a issued a letter to the petitioner informing her she would be at liberty to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38651 WP No. 28590 of 2025 deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- before 31.10.2025 and that if there is any failure, the respondent will proceed in terms of the liberty granted by this Court and that the petitioner would only seek time till 25.11.2025. The learned counsel once again emphasizes that the petitioner is keen to retain the property with no protraction of the litigation. Mr. Kiran Kumar, the learned counsel who appears for Ms. Divya Purandar, the learned counsel who is on record for the respondent, is heard in the light of the afore circumstances. This Court is of the considered view that the interests of justice could be met if the petitioner is permitted to pay the amount as would be payable for regularization before 25.11.2025 but without disturbing any other observation in this Court’s order dated 25.09.2025. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2