- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 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. 8636 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. ARAVAPALLI KRISHNA DEEPTHI D/O ARVAPALLI RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YOONY R/AT FLAT NO. 202, A-BLOCK, SAROJ TULIP APARTMENT, BELATHUR KADUGODI POST, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560067 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVENDRA GOWDA R R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S INDIA BULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (NOW SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED) OFFICE AT NO. 116, 1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA ARCADE, B/W 11TH AND 12TH CROSS, MARGOSA MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 2. MR. MANDAVA BHASKAR, S/O NAGARJUNA RAO M, R/AT NO. 344, 6TH STAGE, 8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, TUBHARAHALLI, WHITEFIELD HYPER CITY, BENGALURU - 560 066 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER.,ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO RESTRUCTURE/RESCHEDULE THE OUTSTANDING LOAN AMOUNT AND TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO REPAY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IN 120 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS AS FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is estranged from her husband [the second respondent, who is the borrower]. In the memorandum of petition, the petitioner has detailed the matrimonial proceedings with the second respondent, including the transfer petition pending before the Apex Court and the outcome in the application filed by her with the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT] invoking Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'SARFAESI Act']. The petitioner seeks direction to the first respondent to restructure/reschedule the outstanding loan amount permitting her to pay the outstanding 120 monthly instalments. 2. This Court, on 24.03.2025, taking on record the circumstances above and recording that the second respondent, because of their floundering - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 relationship, has defaulted in paying EMI resulting in the petitioner's eviction from the subject property, has directed the first respondent to restore possession of the property to the petitioner forthwith. On 26.03.2025, Mr. Francis Xavier, the learned counsel for the first respondent, has stated before this Court that if the petitioner offers a sum of Rs.7,63,000/-, the loan would be regularized and the petitioner will have the advantage of EMI. This Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within a week directing the first respondent to accept the same subject to the result of the petition. 3. Mr. Devendra Gowda R. R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after this Court's order dated 26.03.2025, the petitioner has deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on 02.04.2025, Rs.81,500 on 19.04.2025 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 24.01.2025 [prior to the interim orders of this Court]. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 Mr. Francis Xavier has stated before this Court [of course, without prejudice to the first respondent's interest] that the petitioner can offer a sum of Rs.3,65,298/- by the end of July 2025 for regularization of the loan and to be entitled to EMI. The learned counsel has also stated that the petitioner may have to pay further amounts towards certain charges. 4. Mr. Devendra Gowda R. R. submits that the second respondent has deliberately abstained from participating in the proceedings, and this is despite the Apex Court’s decision in the pending proceedings directing him to participate in the present proceedings, and the learned counsel submits that this Court must direct the first respondent to include the outstanding as part of a regularization with just amount as EMIs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 5. In response, Mr. Francis Xavier submits that the inter se dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent cannot be a reason to stall the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, especially when the petitioner herself admits that she has failed in the proceedings under Section 17 thereof in so far as the request for interim order, and the learned counsel reiterates that if a sum of Rs.3,65,298/- and further charges are paid, the first respondent will regularise the loan which would enable the petitioner to avail EMI. 6. This Court finds considerable force in the first respondent's contention as regards this Court intervening because of the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent, especially when nothing is brought on record to justify a direction to the first respondent to restructure/reschedule the loan. However, with the first respondent taking a stand that if the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 offers Rs.3,65,298/-, the loan could be regularized with the petitioner being entitled to EMI, there must be just orders. 7. This Court, on a careful consideration of all the circumstances, is of the view that the petitioner, notwithstanding her compelling constraints, must pay what is due for regularization of the loan and she must have time that would be reasonable. The petitioner must have time till 31.10.2025, with all the intervening holidays, to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,298/- and the EMI for the months of August, September and October 2025 and without prejudice to the petitioner to avail her remedy under the SARFEASI Act, if in case she is unable to avail the time extended by this Court to offer the afore amounts. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of calling upon the first respondent to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30937 WP No. 8636 of 2025 receive Rs.3,65,298/- and EMI for the months of August, September and October, 2025 either in one part or in multiple parts by 31.10.2025 and not to be precipitative until then. [B] It is observed that if the petitioner cannot tender the afore amounts, it would be open to the first respondent to take all such measures as is justified in law, but without prejudice to the petitioner's remedy. RB SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE