- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6601 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 14481 OF 2025 (GM-RES) IN W.P. No. 6601/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA RICE MILL REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.T.SREENIVAS SETTY, AGE 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 10TH WARD, SANKLAPUR, BELLARY ROAD, HOSAPETE DIST. VIJAYNAGAR - 583 201 2. MR.T.SREENIVAS SETTY, AGE 64 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.46, DOOR NO. 1506 SRI NIVASA, J P NAGARA, BELLARY ROAD, HOSAPETE DIST. VIJAYNAGAR - 583 201 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK SME BRANCH, Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 HOSAPETE DIST. VIJAYANAGAR - 583 201 2. SRI MALAPATI VENKATA REDDY, AGE 71 YEARS, (AUCTION PURCHASER), S/O SRI NARAYANA REDDY NO.72, RESIDENT OF: DOOR NO.992, ANNAPURNA BADAVANE, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA -583 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI R. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO- TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE HONORABLE DRT-1, IN S.A. NO.652/2024 ON 28.02.2025 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN W.P. NO. 14481/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA RICE MILL REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.T.SREENIVAS SETTY, AGE 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 10TH WARD, SANKLAPUR, BELLARY ROAD, HOSAPETE DIST. VIJAYNAGAR - 583 201 2. MR.T.SREENIVAS SETTY, AGE 64 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.46, DOOR NO. 1506 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 SRI NIVASA, J P NAGARA, BELLARY ROAD, HOSAPETE DIST. VIJAYNAGAR - 583 201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M A RAJENDRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK SME BRANCH, HOSAPETE DIST. VIJAYANAGAR - 583 201 2. SRI MALAPATI VENKATA REDDY, AGE 71 YEARS, (AUCTION PURCHASER), S/O SRI NARAYANA REDDY NO.72, RESIDENT OF: DOOR NO.992, ANNAPURNA BADAVANE, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA -583 201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADVOCATE AND SRI ASHOK KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 30.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DRT I AT BENGALURU IN SA NO. 140/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND AS A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS HELD ON 30.03.2024 AND TO RESTORE THE POSSESSION AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR IN THE FRESH MATTERS LIST THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER In W.P.No.14481/2025, the petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by DRT-I in S.A.No.140/2025 and as a consequential relief sought for setting aside of the sale proceedings held on 30.03.2024. Petitioner has also sought for condonation of delay of 286 days taking note of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while noticing the time spent before this Court. W.P.No.6601/2025 is filed by the same petitioner calling in question the order passed by DRT-I in S.A.No.652/2024. 2. Taking note that both the writ petitions relate to and arise out of issues relating to the same loan account, both the writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed off by this common order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 3. In W.P.No.14481/2025, petitioner has challenged the order passed in S.A.No.140/2025. The said securitization application had been filed challenging the auction proceedings. The challenge to auction proceedings came to be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the approach of the petitioner was beyond the time provided for under the statute while further holding that there was no provision for condonation of delay beyond 45 days. 4. The said order is in challenge before this Court on various grounds including that the DRT has wrongly appreciated the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in connection with the contention of the petitioner that the time spent in the proceedings ought to have been excluded while calculating the limitation period. Various other contentions have been raised. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank would submit that as against the order passed by the DRT, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 the appropriate substantive remedy for the petitioner is to approach the DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. This Court cannot take a stand different from that in W.P.No.11273/2024 in the case of Kailasam P v. The Karnataka Bank Limited and others. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.11273/2024, this Court may not be in a position to take a different stand, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. All contentions of the petitioner including the contention relating to non-consideration of time spent before the Court ought to have been excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, is kept open to be raised in the substantive proceedings. 9. Accordingly, W.P.No.14481/2025 is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 order at Annexure-A in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, before the DRAT. All contentions are kept open. Needless to state the time spent in the present proceedings is open to be raised before the DRAT, which may consider the same appropriately. 10. W.P.No.6601/2025 is filed challenging the order passed in S.A.No.652/2024. The said securitisation application was filed challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act relating to possession. The said securitisation application has been rejected on merits. 11. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for respondent submits that as against the order passed in the securitisation application, the substantive remedy for the petitioner is under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 12. Taking note of the substantive remedy, W.P.No.6601/2025 is disposed off without adjudicating - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25827 WP No. 6601 of 2025 C/W WP No. 14481 of 2025 the correctness of the order passed in the securitisation application. Needless to state that in the event the petitioner were to approach the DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, it is open for the petitioner to place before the DRAT the time spent before this Court to be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and it is open for the DRAT to consider the same in an appropriate manner. All contentions on merits regarding the securitisation application is kept open to be raised before the DRAT. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP