- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 21765 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI.S.JAGADISH, S/O LATE.A.N.SIDDABASAPPA, AGE: 64 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S NADIG AND CO, MARUTHI BUILDING, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, SHIVAMOGGA BRANCH, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 2. SRI.H.S.SHIVASHANKAR, SARVASIDDI, F-70, GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 3. SMT. ANITHA, W/O RAVINDRA, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 NO.5/51, ‘D’ BLOCK, SARASWATHI NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY JADAV.H FOR C/R2 IN CP.NO.13960/2025 ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO SA NO.473/2012 ON THE FILE OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU AND RA (SA) 18/2015 ON THE FILE OF DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT CHENNAI (B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN RA (SA) 18/2015 DATED 05.06.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ON THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief: a) Pleased to Call for Records pertaining to SANo.473/2012 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Bengaluru and RA[SA] 18/2025 on the file of Debts - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 Recovery Appellate Tribunal, at Chennai; b) Pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to QUASH the Order passed in RA[SA] 18/2015 dated 05.06.2025 vide Annexure-'H' on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai; c) grant such other writs or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. It appears that the auction of the secured property was done by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 20021. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid proceedings initiated by the Bank for auction by filing S.A.No.473/2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. By an order dated 21.02.2014 the application was allowed and the sale notice of 29.06.2012 and sale proceedings dated 04.08.2012 including sales certificate in respect of the property in question was set aside and declared as illegal. 1 SARFAESI Act - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 The bid amount deposited by the bidder was directed to be refunded by the Bank forthwith. 4. Thereafter the Bank challenged the aforesaid decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai by means of an appeal numbered as RA[SA]18/2025. After a period of 10 years i.e., on 05.06.2025, the appeal of the Bank was allowed and the securitisation application bearing S.A.No.473/2012 filed by the borrower was dismissed with costs to the appellant Bank. The grounds of challenge to the impugned order are that there was no affixation of sale notice as is the mandate of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 20022. It is stated that the mandatory 30 days period notice which is requisite under Rule 9(1) of the aforesaid Rules, 2002 was not observed. It is further contended that the purchaser was required immediately on conclusion of the auction, to deposit 25% of the sale price, which he could have done either by a Demand Draft or by cash but 2 Rules, 2002 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 he deposited the same by way of the cheque. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules, 2002. He has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Debt Recovery Tribunal are in accordance with law and ought not to have been dislodged by the appellate Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, we find that the issues are being sought to be raised by the petitioner's counsel have been addressed by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs No.8, 9 and 10 of the order passed by the appellate Tribunal. As far as the 30 days notice of sale is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal has noticed that the respondent No.1 deliberately avoided the receipt of notice and made it to be returned with the endorsement that addressee had left. The finding returned is the respondent No.2 had received the sale notice and only thereafter both the respondents No.1 and 2 filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 securitisation application challenging the sale notice. There is another finding that there is no dispute with regard to publication of sale notice. Accordingly, it was held that non production of affixation of sale notice would not be fatal to the process of sale, when proper steps had been taken for service of notice through post and through paper publication. The Tribunal also recorded that the cheque dated 04.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10.40 lakhs was drawn on the appellant Bank and that the auction purchaser had in fact paid 25% of the sale consideration on the date of sale itself. Accordingly, the appellate Tribunal found that the order of the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery tribunal was contrary to the evidence on record and set aside the same and allowed the appeal. 6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 25% of the sale amount had to be deposited by demand draft or cash on the date of the sale itself, Rule 9(3) does not provide for any mode for deposit of 25% amount of the sale price. That being the case and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30785-DB WP No. 21765 of 2025 a categorical finding having been returned by the appellate Tribunal that the 25% of the amount was deposited by way of cheque on the date of the sale itself, renders the plea raised before this Court, untenable. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal that would merit interference in this petition. 8. This petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18