Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 69216 (KAR)

SRI. GURUPRASAD v. UNION BANK OF INDIA

WP/18410/2024 · 2025-08-04

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29980 WP No. 18410 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18410 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. GURUPRASAD S/O. M. V. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 35/1, SADANANDANAGAR, 7TH MAIN, M.V. GARDEN, NGEF LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, BENGALURU NORTH, NO.1/1, 1ST FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMPIGE, 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. SRI. MANPREET SACHDEV Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29980 WP No. 18410 of 2024 S/O. JAGJEET SACHDEV, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. SMT. NAVADEEP SACHDEV W/O. MANPREET SACHDEV, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 16, 3RD CROSS, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 008. 4. SRI. N. THANGAVELU S/O. S. NEETHI GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SMT. RAMYA. A W/O. N. THANGGAVELU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO. 009, 4TH FLOOR, SITE NO. 40/41, SAI JYOTHI RESIDENCY, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHU RAO C B., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/05/2024 PASSED BY THE X ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU, IN C.MISC. NO. 50001/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, BY ALLOWING THIS WP. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29980 WP No. 18410 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 13.05.2024 by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Magistrate Court'] in C.Mis.No.50001/2024. The learned Magistrate, by this impugned order, has appointed a learned member of the Bar as a Court Commissioner to assist the first respondent to take possession of the subject property with the help of the jurisdictional Police. Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act], including the impugned proceedings before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29980 WP No. 18410 of 2024 learned Magistrate are without notice to the petitioner; that the petitioner has not parted with the title to the property but has only entered into a loan transaction with the fourth and fifth respondents who have misused the transaction to mortgage the same with the first respondent. The learned counsel also proposes to engage the Court on the different proceedings pending. However, it would be sufficient to observe that every ground that is urged on behalf of the petitioner will be available for due consideration if the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is availed, and no exceptional circumstances are brought out for this Court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the reported exposition by the Apex Court in this regard. The petitioner must therefore be relegated to the statutory remedy as aforesaid, but the petitioner must also be granted some interim protection in view of the fact - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29980 WP No. 18410 of 2024 that this Court has granted an interim order to maintain Status Quo in the month of July 2024. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of leaving open all questions to be decided in an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if such remedy is availed by the petitioner. [B] The first respondent is called upon to defer taking further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order for a limited period of four [4] weeks from today observing that the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT], if the petitioner avails remedy as aforesaid, shall consider the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29980 WP No. 18410 of 2024 request for interim order without being influenced by the arrangement that is provided by this Court in this petition. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB