- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47354 WP No. 32931 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO.32931 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S NISARGA FAMILY RESTAURANT OFFICE AT NO.525/1, OPPOSITE KR MILLS, KESARE KASABA HOBLI MYSURU - 570 011 ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT NO.548/496/3 SITE NO.610 OUTER RING ROAD ALANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU - 570 026 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP SRI. R . MANJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE RACHEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.277, THYAGA MARGA MYSURU - 570 011 PAN ADEPM2640M PH. NO.9986782151 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47354 WP No. 32931 of 2025 AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.26/A, GUEST HOUSE ROAD NAZARBAD, MYSURU – 570 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER MR.SANDEEP SINGHVI IFSC CODE CNRB0000565 PH NO.918212528249 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAY BHAT., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BENGALURU IN NDN/1538/2025(SA) VIDE ANNEXURE-A; b) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47354 WP No. 32931 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “Wherefore, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to: a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru in NDN/1538/2025(SA) vide ANNEXURE-A; b) Pass any such order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the arguments. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a borrower and he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from respondent. It appears that there is default in repayment of the amount, therefore, the respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002). The same was challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47354 WP No. 32931 of 2025 NDN/1538/2025(SA). It appears that on 13.06.2025, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed the following order: “NDN/1538/2025(SA) Counsel for the petitioner present. Counsel entered appearance on Caveat for the Respondent Bank also present. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remit an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to show their bonafide. Petitioner undertakes to remit the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- in two installments in to the loan amount with the Respondent Bank, first of which Rs.35,00,000/- will be paid in four weeks from today and another Rs.40,00,000/- in another four weeks thereafter. Counsel entered appearance on Caveat for the Respondent undertakes to file Vakalath and seeks time to get instructions from the Respondent as to how much time can be given to the Petitioner to pay off the entire liability. Subject to compliance of the undertaking by the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be disposed from the schedule property till next posting date. Post on 10.09.2025.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. It is contended that the petitioner in the present writ petition seeks extension of the said time to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the respondent be directed not to initiate any action till the time given by the Debt Recovery Tribunal i.e., till 04.12.2025. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47354 WP No. 32931 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that as per the undertaking dated 10.09.2025, no amount has been deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief and moreover, the prayer in the petition is not maintainable, since it was an voluntary undertaking made by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to deposit the amount noted in order dated 10.09.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of non-compliance of order dated 10.09.2025, the interim order granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not extended. 6. The impugned order is not a judicial order and it was a recording of submission of the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 7. Looking to the order, it appears that two months time was taken by the petitioner to deposit the amount and the same was not complied by the petitioner, but it is not disputed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has not complied his own undertaking before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the said circumstances, there is no need to intervene in the said order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47354 WP No. 32931 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3