- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26839 WP No. 3780 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.3780 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. RATIKANT NARAYAN RAIKAR S/O. NARAYAN RAIKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. DR. SMT. ANASUYA K. ANNEGIRI SINCE DEAD BY HER LR DR. RATIKANT NARAYAN RAIKAR S/O. NARAYAN RAIKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT: HIG-74, 100 FT ROAD 2ND STAGE HUDCO COLONY VINOBA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 204. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUBAI) LTD. VASUKI TOWER NEXT TO VISHWAS COMMERCIAL BUILDING NEAR TALUK OFFICE OPP: DISTRICT COURT UDUPI-576 101. Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26839 WP No. 3780 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUBAI) LTD. VASUKI TOWER NEXT TO VISHWAS COMMERCIAL BUILDING NEAR TALUK OFFICE OPP: DISTRICT COURT UDUPI-576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMMISSIONER NOTICE ISSUED IN CRL.MISC.NO.27/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., SHIVAMOGGA DATED 01.02.2025 ISSUED FOR TAKING POSSESSION OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-A., ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the validity of the Commissioner notice issued in Crl.Misc.No.27/2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga dated 01.02.2025 at Annexure - A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26839 WP No. 3780 of 2025 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the interregnum during the pendency of the present proceedings the Court Commissioner has issued a fresh possession notice. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioners including that in so far as the possession that is sought to be taken is only one item of the property, as regards such loan, the petitioners are ready to pay substantial amount. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent - bank seriously opposes the grant of any interim order and submits that the matter itself technically has been rendered infructuous in the light of fresh notice issued by the Commissioner subsequent to the notice dated 01.02.2025 which has been challenged in the present petition. He further submitted that the default in any other loan of the same borrower could be clubbed and all could be treated as 'Non performing Asset' in terms of the master circular of Reserve Bank of India irrespective of one of the loans still being regularly serviced and no default in EMI's are made. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26839 WP No. 3780 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the respondent - bank further submits that there are multiple litigations pending between both the parties and substantive remedy provided under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act must be resorted to, as regards, the order of the Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act as well as any consequential proceedings of the Court Commissioner who takes action pursuant to the action of the Commissioner. He further submits that the order of the Magistrate passed on 05.07.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.27/2023 remains unchallenged. It is further pointed out that on the previous occasion, though the petitioners had challenged the validity of such order, directions were issued to consider the proposal for 'One time Settlement' without setting aside the said order. He further submitted that 'One time Settlement' proposal has been considered and rejected as well. 5. Taking note of the stand and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 and noticing that the action of the respondent - bank could be one regarding which grievance could be raised under Section 17 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26839 WP No. 3780 of 2025 SARFAESI Act, the Court declines to enter into the merits of the matter, the petition is disposed off. 6. All contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be raised in substantive proceedings. Needless to state that any action taken would be subject to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if initiated. 7. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. 8. The respondent - bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of one week from today. 9. It is made clear that this protection is granted only on the ground that this Court has not entered into the adjudication of the contentions raised and as the petitioners have relegated to the substantive remedy. 10. Needless to state that upon lapse of time granted by this Court, the interim protection stands discharged. The protection is granted to enable the petitioners to avail - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26839 WP No. 3780 of 2025 substantive remedy and must not be taken note of as an expression on the merits of the matter. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2