- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36271-DB WP No. 11968 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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. 11968 OF 2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S SRI LAKSHMI SALES AND SERVICE CENTRE, NEAR PEENYA BUS STOP, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 058. (REP BY PROP SRI V.MUNISWAMY), SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LR, SMT. BUVANA @ BHUVANESHAVARI, W/O LATE V.MUNISWAMY @ V.K.MURTHY, RESIDING AT 129, SFI - SUPRA ASCENT ROAD, NO.4, DEFENCE LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.V.AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANK OF BARODA, NO.72, 3RD FLOOR, NITESH LEXINGTON AVENUE, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. (REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER) 2. BANK OF BARODA, PEENYA BRANCH, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560058 (REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36271-DB WP No. 11968 of 2017 (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 30.03.2022) 3. S.C.AFSAR, DOOR NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH 'E' MAIN, 4TH BLOCK (WEST), JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 007. 4. METRO RAIL CORPORATION, SHANTHINAGAR BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS ACCEPTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2018 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM DEBIT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI IN RA(SA) 124/2008 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY DEBIT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI ON 4.1.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36271-DB WP No. 11968 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order challenging the orders dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in R.A.No.124/2008 and the order dated 23.04.2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ASA.No.78/2005. 2. The petitioner had obtained a loan from the respondent no.1-Bank, in the year 1998. It appears that the petitioner could not discharge the loan liability in terms of the loan agreement and therefore, the Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioner. The Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act (for short 'the Act'), demanding Rs.14.87 Lakhs from the petitioner. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner made some payments. The total payment made by the petitioner in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court and DRT, are - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36271-DB WP No. 11968 of 2017 Rs.13.20 Lakhs against the demand of Rs.14.87 Lakhs. The petitioner thereafter did not make the payment and the Bank made an offer to the petitioner for making payment of Rs.3.84 Lakhs on 13.12.2004. However, the petitioner did not pick the offer and the said payment was not made for closing the loan account. In that view, the Bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the secured asset was put to auction and in auction proceedings, auction purchaser bought the property for Rs.10,11,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the auction proceedings were conducted against the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules and the DRT and DRAT have erred in dismissing the S.A. and the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the outstanding dues of the Bank on the date of auction proceedings was Rs.5,54,000/-, which had been appropriated from the sale proceeds of the secured assets. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36271-DB WP No. 11968 of 2017 The remaining amount is lying in the Bank as the petitioner has not come forward to take the said amount. 5. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that, this Court may pass an appropriate order for refund of the amount lying in the Bank in respect of the auction sale conducted of the secured asset, with appropriate interest in the interest of justice to give quietus to the long-drawn proceedings. It is further submitted that, the portion of the said secured asset has been acquired by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this Court may give quietus to the long-drawn proceedings by passing an appropriate order for refund of the amount lying in the Bank with appropriate interest keeping in view that the Bank used to charge 18% of interest on the loan advanced to the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36271-DB WP No. 11968 of 2017 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and to give quietus to the long-drawn litigation and in the interest of justice, we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent-Bank (now the Bank of Baroda) to refund the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of issuance of Sale Certificate i.e., 11.08.2005 to the petitioner/legal heirs, within a period of four weeks. 9. The petitioner should go and collect the said amount after a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DHA