- 1 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.12800 OF 2015 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. V. SHOBHA W/O. SRI N. VASU AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 12/3, 16TH CROSS JAIBHARATHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 033 REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER MS. GAYATHRI V. D/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1292, 25TH MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER MS. GAYATHRI V. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PREMNATH T.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION BANK COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER SHREEPATI ARCADE, AUGUST KARNTI MARG NANA CHOWK MUMBAI-38 ALSO AT UNIT NO.305, 3RD FLOOR KEDIC ARCADE, NO.92 INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. R Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 2. MR. GAURAV PANJWANI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.37/10, 1ST FLOOR MEANEE AVENUE, TANK ROAD OPP. LAKE SIDE HOSPITAL ULSOOR BENGALURU-560 042. 3. M/S. COLD EXTRUSION PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. S.P. MANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.177/4, BILEKAHALLI BANNERGATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076. 4. MR. S.P. MANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. LATE V. SWAMINATHAN PROP M/S. PRECI TECH ENGINEERING NO.128-124, 35TH DIVISION N.S. PALYA, BANNERGATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076. 5. MRS. P. UMAMAHESHWARI W/O. S.P. MANI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PROP M/S. SRIRAM ENGINEERING INDUSTRY NO.367/1, N.S. PALYA BANNERGATTA ROAD BENGALURU-76. 6. MR. AMARNATH PRASAD ASULA S/O. A.R. MAURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.7, HOSUR ROAD EAGLE STREET BENGALURU-560 025. 7. THE SUB-REGISTRAR JIGANI-BANNERGHATTA ANEKAL BENGALURU. 8. KARAN RAMSISARIA S/O. CHANDRAPRAKASH RAMISSARIA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.23 - 3 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 GOLAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA BENGALURU-560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.L. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI N. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; R-6 AND R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 28-3-2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-5 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 4-3-2015 PASSED IN AIR NO.116 OF 2014 BY THE HON'BLE DRAT - CHENNAI DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT RS.1,00,00,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE ONLY] BEFORE DRAT WITH IN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE RECEIPT OF COPY OF THE ORDER I.E., ON OR BEFORE 1-4-2015 ON FILING AN APPLICATION THE TIME IS EXTENDED TILL 10-4-2015 CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DRAT TO RESTORE THE SA REGISTERED IN IR NO.825 OF 2013 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN THE SAID MATTER AND CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.08.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 4 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(for short 'DRAT'), Chennai, on IA-339/2014 in AIR No(SA)-116/2014, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- before DRAT within four weeks i.e., on or before 01.04.2015, and to restore SA registered in IR No.825/2013 and permit the petitioner to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is that: Late. S. Venkataswamy, father of the petitioner was a famous Musician and physically handicapped. Considering his service, the Government of Karnataka had granted 5 acres of land bearing Sy.No.262(old Survey No.154), vide order dated 23.07.1981 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, at S. Bingipura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. - 5 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 3. On 09.08.1998, Sri. Venkataswamy stood as guarantor(for short 'Guarantor') for the loan borrowed by one M/s. Cold Extrusion Private Limited(for short 'borrower') and accordingly deposited his title deeds in favour of the Karnataka Bank Limited including 14 other documents. In the year 2004, M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited, Sarakki Layout Branch, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru instituted O.A.No.150/2004 against M/s. Cold Extrusion Private Limited(respondent No.3) and nine others for recovery of money amounting to Rs.9.54 crores against borrowers and guarantors, wherein Sri. Venkataswamy was defendant No.8, and an interim order of injunction was passed restraining all the defendants from encumbering the property. Despite the order of injunction, the guarantor Venkataswamy executed a Gift deed in favour of his daughter Smt. Shobha, the petitioner herein, on 27.05.2005, though the property was subject to mortgage with Karnataka Bank. The guarantor died on 08.01.2006. 4. On 18.01.2006 under the assignment Agreement, debt was transferred to respondent No.1-M/s. Assets Reconstruction Company(India) Limited( for short 'ARCIL') under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. On 22.05.2007, the legal heirs of - 6 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 guarantor were brought on record and the petitioner was arraigned as defendant No.8(d) in the said O.A. proceedings. 5. Said ARCIL brought the property for sale by publishing a public notice in Hindu and local Newspaper on 20.10.2008 and under a public auction, mortgaged property was sold to one Gaurav Panjwani(respondent No.2 herein) and sale certificate was issued in his favour on 30.10.2010. On 02.01.2013, respondent No.2 in-turn sold the property to respondent No.8, Karan Ramsisaria under registered sale deed. On 04.03.2013, O.A.No.150/2004 was withdrawn by ARCIL. 6. On 04.03.2013, the petitioner Shobha filed an appeal before the DRAT, Bengaluru in IR No.825/2013, alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 1353 days in filing the appeal, through her GPA holder Ms. Gayathri. On 23.12.2013, an application to condone delay was dismissed by detailed order under I.A.No.1020/2013 holding that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DRAT at Chennai in I.A.No.339/2014, arising out of AIR(SA)-116/2014. On 04.03.2015, the DRAT, Chennai directed the petitioner to - 7 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to show her bonafide within four weeks on or before 01.04.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this petition. On 10.04.2015, this Court while passing an interim order directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.25.00 lakh within a period of eight weeks from 10.04.2015. But, the petitioner has not deposited any amount as ordered by this Court. 8. The petitioner has taken contention that her father - Guarantor was arraigned as defendant No.8 in the aforesaid proceedings, by concocting and creating the documents in respect of the loan facilities said to have been borrowed by the Principal borrower. The Karnataka Bank has mentioned various scheduled properties pertaining to the Principal borrower in the O.A. application, on the other hand, the Principal borrower cheated the financial institution in collusion with the officials of the bank and committed fraudulent acts by conspiracy, creating and forging the documents. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 9. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8. - 8 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 10. Sri. Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the auction sale conducted was illegal and no demand notice was served upon the petitioner and the possession notice was also not served upon her. The petitioner was not accorded an opportunity to take appropriate steps in defending the alleged notices. Further, respondent No.1- ARCIL undervalued the property and fixed the reserve price at Rs.1.40 crores and at that particular time, the market value of the property was more than Rs.8.00 crores. The sale notice dated 20.10.2008 was published at Mumbai, which is in violation of mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act. The property was sold for Rs.96.00 lakh, which is less than the reserved price stated in the sale notice, which amounts to grave violation of the provisions of the Act. Further, the petitioner has no source of income to deposit an amount of Rs.1.00 crore. If the petitioner had the sources of income and knowledge of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, the petitioner could have made an attempt to put the proposal. Now the petitioner is bonafidly praying to provide an opportunity to challenge the measures adopted by respondent No.1 and to contest the appeal before DRT, Bengaluru. In support of his argument, he relied upon following decisions. - 9 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 1. Srishti Arogyadham Pvt. Ltd., v. Punjab National Bank & Anr., 2018 SCC Online Del 12716. 2. M/s. Akash Ganga Airlines Ltd., Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and others in W.P.No.3973(MS)/2015 3. Gopal Ji Gupta Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad through its Chairman and other, AIR 2013 Allahabad 175. 4. M/s., S.R. Forgoing Ltd and Another Vs. UCO Bank and Ors, CWP No.10957/2012. 5. Mukerian Papers Ltd., and another Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Others, CWP No.9131/2012. 6. Poonam Manshani Vs. J & K Bank Ltd., & Another, W.P.No.(C) No.13042/2009 . 7. Nathi Lal Rathore Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors., 2016 0 Supreme (ALL) 1232. 11. On the other hand, Sri. Paras Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 vehemently contended that respondent No.1 ARCIL sold the property of the guarantor under public auction dated 30.10.2010 in favour of respondent No.2, who in-turn sold the property of the guarantor to respondent No.8 under registered sale deed dated 02.01.2013. In the mean-while, the petitioner filed an appeal before DRT, - 10 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 Bengaluru, same was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on 23.12.2013. Further, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal in AIR(SA).116/2014 before DRAT, Chennai and the DRAT directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1.00 crore to show her bonafide within four weeks or before 01.04.2015. But, the petitioner did not comply the said order and has filed this petition. On 01.04.2015, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from 10.04.2015, however, the petitioner failed to deposit any amount as per the conditional order passed by this Court. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner cannot maintain the petition and accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the following decisions:- 1. International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd., Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 137. 2. S. Karthik and Ors. Vs. N. Subhash Chand Jain & Others, AIR 2021 SC 4559. 3. Shakeena and Another Vs. Bank of India and Others, (2021) 12 SCC 761. - 11 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 4. Canara Bank Vs. P. Selathal & Others, (2020) 13 SCC 143. 5. Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2018) 5 SCC 491. 6. V. Ganesan Vs. Canara Bank & Others, (2018) 14 SCC 212. 7. Smt. K. Padma Vs. K. Ramachandra & Others, AIR 2015 Karnataka 40. 8. Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited and Anr. Vs. Munjaji & Others, (2022) 7 SCC 594. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8, the questions that arise for our consideration are: i) Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal? (ii) Whether notwithstanding the remedy of an appeal, before the DRT, this Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002? - 12 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 14. In the instant case, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 came up for consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Atindra Container Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and others in writ petition No.23638/2023, where it refused to entertain an application for condonation of delay filed along with an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 but granted liberty to the petitioner therein to file an appeal. He therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition but are to be relegated back to the remedy of an appeal before the DRT. 15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8. 16. This Court is conscious of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 as well as the judgment in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank - 13 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 and the judgment in M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 435, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, when a remedy of an appeal is provided, the constitutional Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should refrain from exercising jurisdiction. However, in none of the judgments referred above, the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was considered. The Tribunals have been applying the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in matters relating to the Act of 1996 unmindful of the applicability of Section 24 of the Act of 1993 to proceeding before the DRT. 17. It is well settled that not entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the face of an alternative remedy is a rule of policy and a self- imposed limitation and not a rule of law. However, in a matter where the Tribunals and Courts apply law inappropriately in the absence of a guiding precedent, the Constitutional Courts are not denuded of the powers to set it right by charting the correct course. Therefore, it is imminent that this Court exercises - 14 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to explain the contours of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 18. Section 17 of the Act of 2002 reads as follows: “17. Application against measures to recover secured debts.-(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter,[may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed], to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken: [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower]. [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section]. [(1A) An application under sub-section (1) shall be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; (b) where the secured asset is located; or (c) the branch or any other office of a bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in - 15 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.] (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management or restoration of possession, of the secured assets to the borrower or other aggrieved person, it may, by order,- (a) declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor as invalid; and (b) restore the possession of secured assets or management of secured assets to the borrower or such other aggrieved person, who has made an application under sub-section (1), as the case may be; and (c) pass such other direction as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub- section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or - 16 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section 13 to recover his secured debt. (4A) Where- (i) any person, in an application under sub- section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy,- (a) has expired or stood determined; or (b) is contrary to section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (4 of 1882); or (c) is contrary to terms of mortgage; or (d) is created after the issuance of notice of default and demand by the Bank under sub- section (2) of section 13 of the Act; and (ii) the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (i), then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that - 17 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any part to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made thereunder. 19. Section 17 of the Act of 2002 mandates that an application must be filed before the Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which such measures are taken as provided under Section 13 of the Act of 2002. Under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 if an application is not disposed off by the DRT within a period of four months, as specified in sub-section (5), any party may file an application to the Appellate Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the DRT. - 18 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 20. The Tribunal for the purposes of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is defined under Section 2(1)(i) which is as follows: “2(1)(i) “Debts Recovery Tribunal” means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.” 21. Insofar as the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 24 of the Act provides as follows: “24. Limitation.- The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal.” 22. Therefore, a reading of Section 24 of the Act, 1993 makes it beyond doubt that the Tribunal has the powers of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 not only in respect of an application filed under the Act of 1993 but also in respect of an application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have an over riding effect over all other laws which are inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the Act per se does not mandate that the provisions - 19 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 23. Therefore, it can be concluded that the DRT also has power to condone the delay by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1993. 24. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by DRAT, Chennai, the petitioner has not deposited a sum of Rs.1.00 crore to show her bonafide within four weeks or on or before 01.04.2015. It is to be noted that the order dated 04.03.2015 was self operative. On failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- prior to 01.04.2015, the interim order stood automatically vacated. It could thus be seen that even on this occasion, the petitioner had an opportunity for redemption of the mortgage and clearing her/their properties from encumbrance. Even this Court while passing interim order directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.25.00 lakhs, however, the petitioner even during this period did not comply the order and did not avail the opportunity. 25. Admittedly, from perusal of the pleading and contention of the learned counsel for petitioner, it appears that, - 20 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 petitioner has no source of income. The father of petitioner stood as guarantor to the loan transaction and mortgaged his property to the Bank. Since 2004, petitioner has not made any effort to clear the loan of the borrower. The petitioner not made any effort to take action against the borrower. If borrower or guarantor failed to deposit the bank loans, it would likely result in an increase in public debt, a greater risk of banks over extending credit. This could de-stabilize the financial system. Therefore, the guarantor's liability is joint and several, meaning the lender can pursue the guarantor for the amount of loan. If a guarantor refuses to pay, the bank can initiate legal proceedings, accordingly, the bank initiated action against both borrower and guarantor. The petitioner has not come up with clean hands, as she never shown her inclination to comply the order of DRAT or this Court, since 10 years. The petitioner has slept over her right. In order to claim one's right, she must be vigilant of her right/liability. The maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt", literally means that, the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. 26. In this case, the auction sale was conducted on 30.10.2010, wherein respondent No.1 sold the property under public auction to respondent No.2. The bank had undervalued - 21 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 the property and sold to meager amount of Rs.96 lakhs. In fact, the consequences of undervaluing a property and sold in public auction, would be declared null and void, thus, same is illegal act. Whereas, the petitioner has not placed any material to substantiate that the subject property was undervalued, with cogent evidence. 27. On 02.01.2013, respondent No.2 sold the property in question to respondent No.8. Only thereafter, the petitioner filed IR No.825/2013 before the DRT, Bengaluru, same was rejected on the ground of delay and laches, thus she preferred appeal before DRAT, Chennai in AIR(SA) 116/2014. 28. In the instant case, sale notice was published at Mumbai. We have perused Annexure 'F'-Possession notice dated 18.07.2008 issued by respondent No.1, to conduct auction sale through paper publication in "The New Indian Express". As per "public notice for sale", the place of office of respondent No.1 is shown as "Mumbai", and no where it indicate that, it was published at Mumbai, contrary to it, Annexure-'G' clearly demonstrate that, it was published at 'Bengaluru' and not at Mumbai. Further, the petitioner has not furnished the News paper publication to be issued by Press - 22 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 Trust of India. Thus, in the absence of such material particulars, we hold that, public notice was published at Bengaluru. Thus, there is no merit consideration in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 29. Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J Rajiv Subramanyiyan and Another Vs. M/s. Pandiyas and Others, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 651 is concerned, the said judgment relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610. However, on facts, the issue in the said case was different. In the said case, the property was sold by respondent -Bank through a private treaty. Hence, the Apex Court found that there were no terms settled in writing between the borrowers and the bank that the sale can be effected by a private treaty, and as such, it was in violation of the provisions of Rule 8 (8) of the said rules. 30. In the case of Vasu P. Shetty Vs. Hotel Vandana palace and Others reported in 2014 (5) SCC 660, after the first notice was issued, the same was challenged before the High Court. Though the High Court did not grant stay against - 23 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 the scheduled auction, it granted stay against the confirmation of sale. It was the bank's case therein that in view of the partial stay order by the High Court, nobody came forward to participate in the auction and the exercise went to futility. 31. Whereas, the present case is totally on different facts. Though, the petitioner had ample opportunities for redemption of mortgage, she failed to avail of the said opportunities. 32. Even if we viewed from another angle, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable. The petitioner had right of redemption, which is embedded in Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, is available to the mortgager unless it has been extinguished by the act of the parties. Only on execution of the conveyance and registration of transfer of the mortgager's interest by registered instrument, that the mortgager's right of redemption will be extinguished. In the present case, the bank proceeded under SARFAESI Act and assigned the process of transfer to respondent No.1, who transferred the property of guarantor under public auction in favour of respondent No.2. Hence, in any case, the mortgager's right of redemption stood extinguished on 30.10.2010. - 24 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 33. After delay of 1353 days of the public auction and confirmation of sale, the petitioner being the daughter of guarantor filed an application before DRT, Bengaluru. Therefore, the DRT has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. 34. The said order was challenged in AIR(SA) 116/ 2014 before DRAT, Chennai. The DRAT, Chennai passed the impugned order and accorded an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit Rs.1.00 crore. Even the said order was not complied. As such, the bank followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and took possession of the property of the guarantor and conducted public auction in accordance with law. 35. If we look at the facts of the present case, it would show that, every attempt has been made to frustrate the purpose of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent Bank and respondent purchasers were dragged to indulge in three rounds of litigation, i.e., IR 825/2013 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, AIR(SA) 116/2014 before Debt Recovert Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and writ petition before this court. 36. Though the auction purchaser emerged as the successful bidder in the bid held on 30.10.2010 and though the - 25 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 sale was confirmed and sale deed was registered in the name of respondent No.1 and it was subsequently alienated in favour of respondent No.8 on 02.01.2013, for twelve and half years, the purchaser could not enjoy the fruits of the said sale. Now, the ownership of said property vest in the auction purchaser and subsequently respondent No.8. 37. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit insofar as the impugned order passed by DRAT, Chennai. Any contentions raised by the petitioner that the auction was conducted in contravention of the law, i.e., undervalued the property, has no any force in view of any contra documents. We do not find any merit in the said submission. The petition is therefore found to be without merit and as such, is dismissed. 38. On 19.08.2025, the petitioner furnished two Demand Drafts for a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs, in compliance of the order dated 10.04.2025, but, the production of Demand Drafts for a sum of Rs.25.00 lakh in compliance of the order dated 10.04.2025, is not an actual compliance. The petitioner has committed willful default in complying the order dated 10.04.2025. Hence, the Registry is directed to return the said Demand drafts viz., 1) Demand Draft bearing No.190442 dated - 26 - WP No. 12800 of 2015 16.08.2025 for Rs.20.00 lakh and 2) Demand Draft bearing No.606398 dated 18.08.2025 for Rs.5.00 lakh in favour of the petitioner on proper identification. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN/- CT: VR