- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 34781 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: L AND T FINANCE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L AND T FINANCE LIMITED, 7TH FLOOR, TECHNOPOLIS, A- WING, PLOT NO.4, BLOCK- BP, SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE KOLKATA-700091 AND HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT L AND T FINANCE LIMITED, SITE NO.92, ZED SQUARE, FIRST FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, JNC ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 REP. BY ITS POA HOLDER MR. FAYAZ AHAMED. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H N VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 AND: 1. MRS. SNEHALATHA SURANA W/O GYANCHAND SURAN BDA NO.131/A, 10TH MAIN 14TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560102. 2. MR. GYANCHAND SURANA J S/O LATE JAI CHAND LAL SURAN BDA NO.131/A, 10TH MAIN 14TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560102. …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2025 PASSED BY THE 39TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN CRL. MUSC NO. 5449/2025 AT ANNX-A. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 CAV ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to, (i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble 39th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.5449/2025 at Annexure A. (ii) Pass such other or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice & equity.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Non-Banking Financial Company. During the course of its business, the respondents had approached the petitioner for certain credit facilities for home loan. Considering the same, they have sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,00,000/-. When the respondents have failed to pay the loan instalments, the loan account was classified as non- performing asset on 30.09.2024 and on 06.11.2024, the petitioner issued a Demand Notice to the respondents under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 2002, (hereinafter referred as ‘SARFAESI Act’) and called upon on them jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.4,83,58,778.07/- as on 04.11.2024, within a period of 60 days from the date of the notice together with further interest. 3. The Demand Notice was delivered to the respondents and the notice was also affixed on the outer door/conspicuous part of the secured asset of the mortgage property. It is stated that in compliance of sub-rule 1 of rule 3 the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the contents of the Demand Notice was also published in two leading newspapers, i.e., Indian Express dated 19.11.2024 in English edition and another in Varthabharati dated 19.11.2024 in Kannada edition. The copies of the online delivery proof for having delivered the Demand Notice confirmed by the Santacruz postal department is produced by the petitioner. Despite service of the Demand Notice, when the respondents failed to pay the outstanding amount, the Authorised Officer of the petitioner had sent a Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 22.01.2025 by following due process of law as enumerated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 4. The petitioner had also issued Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 22.01.2025 by speed post and the same returned undelivered with the note ‘no such person in this address’. Thereafter, as contained in sub rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the Possession Notice was also published in daily newspapers i.e., Financial Express in English edition dated 28.01.2025 and Hosa Digantha in Kannada edition dated 28.01.2025. When the respondents have failed to comply with the Demand Notice, the petitioner had approached the XXXIX Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore and filed a criminal miscellaneous petition bearing Crl.Misc.No.5449/2025 on 30.07.2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by order dated 25.10.2025 on the ground that there is no service of Demand Notice and the Possession Notice on the respondents as the petitioner has not produced the original postal receipts and postal acknowledgments. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact, they have placed before the trial Court the acknowledgement that is received by the respondents under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also the letter of the postal department that it is served. Under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, when the notice that is sent is returned as no such address, they went to the place and they have affixed the notice. While the notice was affixed, the respondents/borrower was very much present in the photo. Further, they have also obtained a letter from the postal department with regard to this. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court ought to have considered this and ought to have ordered the petition that is filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned. In the order impugned, the learned Magistrate had observed that the respondents had received the Demand Notice and Possession Notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to clear the loan. According to the SARFAESI Act, postal receipt and RPAD cover both are very important to prove that compliance of Sections - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Here, there is non- compliance under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondents have published the possession notice in Financial Express (English Newspaper) and Hosadiganta (Kannada Newspaper) on 28.01.2025 which is within 7 days on the date of issuance of the possession notice. In view of the non-compliance under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, there is non-compliance of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has not made out grounds seeking for an order under the SARFAESI Act for obtaining the possession. The learned Magistrate had also observed that the Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is claimed to have been served, but the Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act though it was of the same address, had returned with the endorsement as no such person which creates doubt about service is made out or not with the respondents. 7. In the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, notice to the respondents is not necessary. Hence, this Court is not proposing to issue notice to the respondents. In this case, notice under Section 13(2) of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 SARFAESI Act is served and they have placed the letter confirming receipt of the Demand Notice before this Court. Then on the same address, when they have sent the Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, it is returned as no such person in this address. For that also, they have placed the letter endorsed by the postal department before this Court. They have taken out paper publication in two newspapers. On the face of it, there is clear compliance on the part of the petitioner in serving the notice. This Court has perused the photographs where Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is affixed on the house of the borrower, where the respondents/borrower is also present. Notice was sent to the correct address by a recognized mode. The dispatch is proved by the letter issued by the postal department, the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was served on the same address. But the notice sent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, returned as no such addressee which shows that the borrower is trying to evade service of notice. A party cannot defeat statutory proceedings by evading service. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53059 WP No. 34781 of 2025 Magistrate is not a well considered one. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed by XXXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court for fresh consideration. ii. The XXXIX Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG CT:bms List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2