- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30938 WP No. 15020 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.15020 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. N.T. SUMITHRAMMA W/O SRI. G. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT "GOKULA" 5TH CROSS, III MAIN ROAD KUMEMPU NAGARA TUMAKURU CITY - 572101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S.DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6TH FLOOR (LEVEL 2) BUILDING NO.Q2, AURUM Q PARC GEN 4/1, TTC THANE BELAPUR ROAD GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI-400710 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR IS A NON BANKING FINANCEIAL COMPANY [NBFC] 2. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED NO.25/7, 2ND FLOOR HMT MAIN ROAD MATHIKERE Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30938 WP No. 15020 of 2025 BENGALURU-560054 REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OF RESPONDENT NO.1 3. SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S/O SRI. CHITTAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5-D 6TH MAIN, HAVANUR EXTENSION NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPAMA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAY S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R1; NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO(I) QUASHING THE PURPORTED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 13.05.2025 PASTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISION OF SUB SECTION 4 OF SECTION 13 OF SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002 (54 OF 2002) READ WITH RULE 8 OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES 2002 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-F INSOFAR AS THE SITE NO.77- SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30938 WP No. 15020 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the first and second respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 [SARFAESI Act]. Mr. R. Subramanya, the learned counsel who is permitted to argue on behalf of the petitioners submits that, [a] the third respondent has purportedly deposited title deeds to the subject property with the aforementioned respondents on 04.03.2010, [b] the petitioner has purchased the subject property on 11.03.2016 after due diligence, including verification of the Encumbrance Certificate by the Sub- Registrar, and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30938 WP No. 15020 of 2025 [c] the petitioner, acting upon the transfer under the Sale Deed dated 11.03.2016 has dealt with the property developing the same. 2. However, Mr. R. Subramanya does not dispute that the question of the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser and therefore entitled to avoid the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, is steeped in the fact matrix and that must necessarily be examined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT] in the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and the learned counsel makes a request for reasonable time for the petitioner to avail the remedy but with protection in the interregnum against precipitation. Ms. Anupama M, the learned counsel who appears for the first and second respondents on behalf of Sri. Vijay S, is heard in the light of these circumstances, and this Court is of the view that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30938 WP No. 15020 of 2025 first and second respondents must hold their hands and not be precipitous for about five [5] weeks effective from this date and the petitioner must avail her remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition stands disposed of directing the first and second respondents not to take any precipitative action pursuant to the impugned notice for a period of five [5] weeks from today, with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions, to avail alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act. b. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner indeed avails alternative remedy, the DRT shall consider any request for interim arrangement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30938 WP No. 15020 of 2025 independent of the arrangement that is provided for by this Court in this order. c. Insofar as the request for exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this petition, it is needless to observe that it is also an aspect that must be considered by the DRT. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB