- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38580 WP No. 25116 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25116 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. SHEELA W/O SRINATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSURU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K R NAGAR TALUK-571617 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR P.,ADVOCATE) AND: UJJIVAN SMALLA FINANCE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38580 WP No. 25116 of 2025 AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ MANAGER HEAD OFFICE, GRAPE GARDAN, NO.27, 3RD A CROSS, 18TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALURE-560095. …RESPONDENT (BY MS.SONA RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PRE SALE NOTICE, DATED 29.07.2025 UNDER SARFAESI ACT, 2002 DATED AT ANNX-B SO FAR HAS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38580 WP No. 25116 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner [a borrower] is aggrieved by the pre-sale notice dated 29.07.2025 [Annexure-B] issued by the respondent, and the respondent has issued this notice informing the petitioner that a sum of Rs.7,79,061/- remains outstanding and that if this amount is not paid within thirty [30] days, the secured asset [a residential property] will be brought to sale under Rule 8(5) and (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. After the orders of the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] in Crl.Misc.No.227/2024 there is some dispute about who is in possession of the subject property. The respondent asserts that though the possession was taken after the orders under Section 14 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38580 WP No. 25116 of 2025 SARFAESI Act, the petitioner/her family members have forcibly reentered into possession, and the petitioner asserting that the subject property is still under the lock and key of the respondent. Sri.Vijayakumar P, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged default is because of the respondent's failure to give credit for certain amounts deposited and extending the loan period without consent. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner could have availed alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner must be at liberty to avail such remedy, subject to all just exceptions, not just against the proceedings thus far under the SARFAESI Act but also against any further proceedings that could be. However, the question is about the interim arrangement that should be until the petitioner avails - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38580 WP No. 25116 of 2025 alternative remedy based on the further proceedings the respondents to take measure for bringing the property to sale or take possession of the subject property. This Court, given the fact that even according to the respondent the claim is only for a sum of Rs.7,79,061/- is of the opinion that the respondent must consider the petitioner's willingness, if any, to offer entire amount before 15.10.2025. With liberty in this regard, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr