- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33960 WP No. 12298 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12298 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S SIDDHARTHA CORRUGATED CARTON BOX INDUSTRIES BY ITS PROP SRUJITH KESHAV M C SHED NO.C-7 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAVANDAVAPURA PIN - 571434. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA PANDAVAPURA BRANCH Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33960 WP No. 12298 of 2025 (07202) BEHIND TALUK OFFICE, V.C.COLONY PANDAVAPURA PIN - 571434. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRABHU RAO C.B., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 24.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33960 WP No. 12298 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a borrower engaged in the manufacture of corrugated carton boxes, is aggrieved by the respondent's decision to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act']. The petitioner has called in question the possession notice dated 24.03.2025 [Annexure-D] issued by the respondent under Section 13[4] of the SARFAESI Act. Sri Lakshmikanth K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, proposes to contend that post the date of issuance of the impugned notice, the petitioner has paid substantial amounts and therefore the impugned notice is rendered infructuous, and the learned counsel also submits that alternatively this Court may permit the petitioner to take advantage of the deposit and file a representation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33960 WP No. 12298 of 2025 Sri Prabhu Rao C B, the learned counsel for the respondent, who is permitted to take notice is heard, and the learned counsel submits that the notice is issued but no further measures are taken and that the respondent will take further measures after taking into account the amounts that have been credited even after the date of notice. This Court is of the considered view that all the circumstances must be considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT] under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. As such, leaving open all contentions to be urged, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-