- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31497 WP No. 20149 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20149 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT RATHNA N W/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560086. 2. SRI BHADRAPPA N S/O LATE NANJAPPA, R/AT NO.135/7, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHNAGAR, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE,KARNATAKA-560086. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR H.B.,ADVOCATE) AND: L AND T FINANCE LIMITED CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS SITE NO. 92, ZED SQUARE, JNC ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095 REGISTERED UNDER Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31497 WP No. 20149 of 2025 COMPANIES ACT, REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, MR. FAYAZ AHAMED. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.N. VASUDEVAN., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAPRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE DEMAND DRAFTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,00,000/- TENDERED BY THE PETITIONER AND HAND OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONER AND ALSO FURTHER ACCEPT THE BALANCE OF RUPEES 15 LAKHS AS DIRECTED BY THIS COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 9/12/2024 AND 20/12/2024, PASSED IN WP.NO.33222/2024 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS PER ANNEXURE -A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RENDER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ENTAILING RS 8 LAKHS TOWARDS EMI ALREADY PAID AND RS 8 LAKHS DEPOSITED BEFORE DRT BY THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31497 WP No. 20149 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners, borrowers who are dispossessed from a residential property [secured asset] in December 2020, seek direction to the respondent. The petitioners’ prayer reads as under: Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order directing the Respondent to accept the Demand Drafts amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- tendered by the Petitioner and hand over the schedule property to the petitioner and also further accept the balance of Rupees 15 lakhs as directed by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 09.12.2024 and 20.12.2024, passed in W.P.No.33222/2024 on the file of Hon'ble High Court as per Annexure-A and direct the respondents to render the statement of accounts entailing Rs.8 lakhs towards EMI already paid and Rs.8 lakhs deposited before DRT by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners rely upon the orders of this Court in W.P.No.33222/2024 [GM-DRT], and in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31497 WP No. 20149 of 2025 terms of which the petitioners were allowed a certain time line to pay Rs.15,00,000/- at the first instance before 31.01.2025 and the remaining outstanding by 31.05.2025. The petitioners rely upon certain circumstances to justify why even Rs.15,00,000/- could not be made over, but the respondent’s case, as recorded by this Court on the previous hearing date, is stated thus: Sri H.N. Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while emphasizing that the possession is recovered under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] and the petitioner's application as against such action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is disposed of, submits that the outstanding as of today is in a sum of Rs.56,54,109/- and unless that amount is offered the respondent cannot accept any tender. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31497 WP No. 20149 of 2025 3. This Court has called upon Sri H.B. Uday Kumar to verify whether the petitioners will sit with the respondent's representative and sort out the account so that there could be a closure with no further protraction. The learned counsel states, on instructions, that the petitioners, given the huge claim that they are made to answer despite certain payments made after restructuring, cannot accept the demand now made. 4. This Court must record that if the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent subsist as against the amounts that must be made for final closure and the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision to take possession under the SARFAESI Act, they must, subject to the outcome in their earlier application, pursue their remedy as is permissible under such enactment and there would be no reason for this Court's interference to decide on the quantum that remains outstanding if Rs.30,00,000/- is paid. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31497 WP No. 20149 of 2025 Therefore, subject to all just exceptions in law, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr