- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 21725 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. PHILOMEN A AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PLOT NO.49, VIJAYA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.T-03, 2-CR, CHIKKARAMAIAH LAYOUT, VARANASI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 036. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. AJAY KUMAR N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. BANK OF INDIA RESIDENTIAL CAMPUS, SRI SATYA SAI INSTITUTE OF HIGHER MEDICAL SCIENCES, EPIP ZONE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 066. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, WHITEFIELD BRANCH, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER RULE 8(6) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 (ANNEXURE-A), PROPOSING TO CONDUCT E-AUCTION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AS BEING Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE TERRNS OF THE ONE-TIME SETTLEMENT AND 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 sought for setting aside of the notice dated 20.06.2025 issued by the Respondent - Bank under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in so far as e-auction sale notice relating to the immovable property consisting of residential apartment bearing No.49, Flat No.T-03, 3rd Floor, Vijay Residency, 2nd Cross, Varanasi Road, Chikkaramaiah Layout, Akshaya Nagara, T.C.Palya, Bengaluru. Petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to treat the loan account as full and finally settled under One Time Settlement Scheme as per the offer. Certain other consequential reliefs have been sought for. The case made out by the Petitioner is that he had availed of a loan of Rs.22,00,000/- and had furnished security by way of mortgage of the residential property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 2. It is stated that pursuant to certain measures by the Respondent-Bank, the Petitioner proposed One Time Settlement offer for Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh Rupees only) which was accepted by the Bank in terms of Annexure-D. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had immediately thereafter suffered heart attack and was admitted at St. Johns Medical College and Hospital. The Petitioner submits that immediately upon recovery on 17.04.2025, Petitioner had identified a prospective purchaser and had remitted Rs.9,95,000/- (Nine Lakh and Ninety Five Thousand Rupees only) and in addition to the Rs.5,000/- deposited earlier, and the entire amount in terms of the One Time Settlement was paid. The Petitioner submits that however the Bank issued an auction sale notice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Bank submits that the One Time Settlement at Annexure- D was for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with a condition of upfront payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 5. It is to be noticed that offer made for One Time Settlement Scheme to the Respondent-Bank was accepted for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The source of payment as noticed in the offer was as follows: "Income generating out of selling this same property" 6. The stand of the Petitioner was that he had made arrangement for sale of the property and due to reasons beyond his control, the same did not fructify in time and immediately thereafter, the Petitioner who was suffering from heart ailment was admitted to St. Johns Medical College and Hospital and underwent a bypass surgery, relevant records have been produced. 7. It is the case of the Petitioner that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid to the Respondent - Bank in terms of the offer made under the existing policy and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 Bank may reconsider the payment made belatedly and give effect to the One Time Settlement offer that was accepted in terms of Annexure-D. It is the medical ailment of the Petitioner as a matter of record as also the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- though with certain delay. 8. At the time of arguments, it is submitted that the matter may be directed to be reconsidered by the Respondent - Bank insofar as One Time Settlement offer that was made and amount paid. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has met officers of the Respondent - Bank and he has assured of his sincerity to settle the issue. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent - Bank submits that the Petitioner has no doubt met the officials of the Bank but a decision may have to be taken and further submits that the Court may be pleased to pass appropriate directions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 10. Taking note of the assertion of learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.R.Ravishankar appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, that efforts are on for a settlement and the request of the Petitioner to specifically consider the case of the Petitioner under the existing One Time settlement Scheme as on 22.10.2024, appropriate directions may be issued that would enable the Petitioner to sit across with the Bank officials and settle the matter. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that an appropriate decision would be taken by the Respondent - Bank Officials considering the amount involved. 11. Taking note of the stand of both the sides including that of the Respondent - Bank that are open to consider the request of petitioner if appropriate directions are granted, it would be appropriate to dispose off the matter relegating the Petitioner to the hands of the Respondent-Bank for reconsideration of his request in so far as One Time Settlement at Annexure-D in terms of the policy prevailing as on date, namely, 22.10.2024. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 12. The Petitioner to make out a detailed representation to the Respondent - Bank making out grounds for reconsideration of his One Time Settlement policy upon appropriate conditions as regards settlement in terms of policy existing as on date of Annexure-D. 13. It is up to the Respondent - Bank to take note of Petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders. In light of the same, the auction notice at Annexure-A is set aside and liberty is reserved to the Respondent-Bank to take note of the observations above and take a decision. 14. Needless to state in the event of any failure of proposed settlement as requested by the Petitioner, it would always be open for the Respondent - Bank to take recourse to steps as available under the statute. 15. Accordingly, Petition is allowed. The notice at Annexure-A is set aside to the extent of the Petitioner's - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28486 WP No. 21725 of 2025 interest is concerned in light of the observations made above. 16. Petitioner to make representation to the Respondent - Bank within a period of seven days from today. It is clarified that the order made is in the facts of the present case on the basis of the stand of the respondent Bank and may not be treated to be a precedent. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE BSV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK