- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33901 WP No. 11352 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11352 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: S.G. MOHAMMED S/O H.S. ABDULLA AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS PULITHAPADAPU HOUSE MANCHI POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DISTRICT MANGALURU-575 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.P.S.KHADRI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALURU-575 001 2. CANARA BANK SME SPECIALISED BRANCH RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX KOADAILBAIL MANGALURU-575 003 BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING BALMATTA RAOD OPP: HOTEL ROOPA MANGALURU-575 003 4. POLICE INSPECTOR MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION KADRI, MANGALURU-575 003 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33901 WP No. 11352 of 2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4; SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 BEARING NO.MAG(2)CR 681/2016- 17/193290/C4 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.01.2017 bearing No.MAG(2)CR 681/2016-17/193290/C4 passed by the respondent No.1. He has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to register his complaint dated 18.01.2016 and to take suitable action in accordance with law. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to furnish documents sought by the petitioner in his representation dated 18.08.2016. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33901 WP No. 11352 of 2017 2. (i) The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of D.No.163/1 in Manchi Village, Batwal taluk. He claims that he had approached Mr. Mukesh K.C., who was then working as a Manger with the respondent No.2, for the purpose of availing loan for his business. The petitioner was asked to bring the original title deeds pertaining to his property and after he submitted all the documents, his signatures were obtained on the loan applications etc., After obtaining the signatures, he was assured that the loan would be sanctioned and he was asked to come after ten days. When he went to the bank after 10 days, he came to know that Mr. Mukesh K.C. was transferred to Kerala and the loan that was sanctioned was credited to his account and withdrawn. (ii) The petitioner contends that his attempts to reach Mr. Mukesh K.C. went in vain. He therefore lodged a complaint with the respondent No.4 against Mr. Mukesh K.C. on 18.01.2016. However his complaint was not registered. He then visited the bank and asked for the documents relating to loan account and submitted a representation dated 18.08.2016. However, the respondent No.2 did not furnish any documents, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33901 WP No. 11352 of 2017 but initiated proceedings against the petitioner and the house belonging to him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for short), by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the 'SARFAESI Act'. which culminated in an order under Section 13(4) of the 'SARFAESI Act'. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging an order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.4 to register his complaint and for a direction to the respondent No.3 to furnish the documents. 3. The petitioner has challenged an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before this Court. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satywati Tondon and others - AIR 2010 SC 3413 and a judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Vimala Bhushan Vs. The Authorised Officer, YES Bank Limited, Mumbai and others - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33901 WP No. 11352 of 2017 - ILR 2019 KAR 2520 the petition before this Court is not maintainable, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 4. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the tribunal in accordance with law and seek reliefs. It is open for the petitioners to compel the bank, before the Tribunal, to produce the required documents. If a request is made, the Tribunal shall favourably consider the same, subject to its satisfaction that the documents sought for are necessary. 5. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applicants if any, do no survive for consideration and the same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32