SRI. BASAVARAJU T V v. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK
WP/2881/2025 · 2025-07-29
B M Shyam Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 54875 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 54875 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29108 WP No. 2881 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2881 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJU T V S/O G VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A SRI GIRI NIVASA 1ST MAIN ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR KUVEMPUNAGAR TUMKUR-572103.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H.,ADVOCATE) AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICER MARUTHI TOWERS, III FLOOR NEAR SIT MAIN GATE B H ROAD, WARD NO.27, GANGOTHRINAGARA PO, KUVEMPUNAGAR TUMKURU-572103.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIBAZ KHAUSAR.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SARITHA Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29108 WP No. 2881 of 2025
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 06.01.2025 VIDE ANNX-B ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO;
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST / REPRESENTATION OF THE PETIIONER HEREIN FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, a borrower who has availed two Housing Loans and an Overdraft facility from the respondent, is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, the 'SARFAESI Act']. This Court has granted interim
order on 01.02.2025 staying further proceedings subject to the petitioner depositing a
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29108 WP No. 2881 of 2025
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- within four weeks and this interim order against further proceedings is reiterated on the condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs.5,00,000/- before 30.03.2025.
If Sri Virupakshaiah P H., the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has complied with both the conditions, on behalf of Sri Shibaz Khausar [the learned counsel for the respondent], it is stated that the petitioner has not complied with the second condition asserting that [i] the petitioner's accounts [both OD and Home Loans] are declared as Non-performing Assets [NPA], [ii] that proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act because the petitioner has defaulted in repayment of the OD Account, and [iii] loans are so classified in terms of the RBI Guidelines. In rejoinder, Sri Virupakshaiah submits that the petitioner cannot be called a defaulter in respect of the OD facility because he is regular in paying interest and the learned
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29108 WP No. 2881 of 2025
counsel also submits that the petitioner will pay further amount [on the Home Loans] to show his bona fides.
Be these submissions as it may, the crucial question is whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and answer obviously would be in the negative in view of the decision of the apex Court in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K C, reported in [2018]1 SCR 233. Therefore the petition must be disposed of but with liberty to avail remedy under the SARFAESI Act. This Court must also provide for some interim measure, because the petitioner has had protection as aforesaid for almost a period of five months, but with the observation that if the petitioner avails remedy as aforesaid, the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT] must examine the request for continuation of the protection independent of the arrangement that has prevailed. Hence, the following
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29108 WP No. 2881 of 2025
ORDER The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under the SARFAESI Act subject to all exceptions in law. The respondent is directed to defer coercive measures for Eight [8] weeks from today. It is observed that DRT shall consider the petitioner's request if any, for interim protection uninfluenced by the interim protection extended by this Court.
Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
NV