- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29423 WP No. 22792 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22792 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MS.DIVYA DINESH D/O SRI. DINESH K AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. R/AT NO. 2/5, SAJJEPALYA, VISWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. DINESH K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S L AND T FINANCE LTD REGISTERED OFFICE AT BRINDVAN, PLOT NO. 177, C.S.T. ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-400098. AND ALSO BRANCH OFFICE M/S L AND T FINANCE LTD, SITE NO. 92, ZED SQUARE FIRST FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, JNC ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29423 WP No. 22792 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS POA HOLDER, MR. FAYAZ AHAMED …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.N.VASUDEV, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP I.E THROUGH E AUCTION PROPOSED TO BE HELD ON 29/07/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a defaulter who owns in excess of Rs.1.7 Crores to the respondent, is aggrieved by the auction notice issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act']. Mr. H. N. Vasudevan, the learned counsel, who is permitted to take notice for the respondent, states that auction was scheduled to be held on 29.07.2025, but because no bids were offered, the respondent will have to reissue notice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29423 WP No. 22792 of 2025 The question for consideration is: whether this Court must entertain its extraordinary jurisdiction when the petitioner, even if there is a cause, can call in question the respondent’s further action to bring the subject assets to sale under the SARFAESI Act. This Court, on perusal of the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition is not persuaded to opine that there could be a cause for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed, but this Court also observes that this disposal will not preclude the petitioner's rights under the SARFAESI Act. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB