SRI. CHALAPATHI. T. v. THE MAHILA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
WA/412/2022 · 2025-08-14
Jayant Banerji, Umesh M Adiga
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 80818 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 80818 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. CHALAPATHI.T, S/O LATE THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRY-CLEANER,
2.
KUM.ANNIE VAZ, D/O LATE RICHARD VAZ, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. PUBLIC SERVANT,
3. SRI.GURUMURTHY, S/O LATE RUDHRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. PUBLIC SERVANT,
4. SRI.MAHADEVA, S/O LATE SUBBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION CABLE TV EMPLOYEE,
5.
SMT.RADHAMMA @ SMT.RADHA, W/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE MAID,
6. SRI.MADHU.K.M, S/O LATE MARI GOWDA,
Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER,
7. SMT.POLLAMMA, W/O LATE BUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SWEEPER
ALL ARE RESIDIG AT:
#24, SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST ‘B’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054. …APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.HEGDE SUMANA MAHADEV., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS ASST.ACCOUNTANT OFFICER, SRI.KRISHNA V GARADIMANI, NO.13 AND 14, SOUTH END ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.
2.
LATE SRI.NARAYANA RAO, REP. BY LRS
2(A). SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.N, MAJOR, S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO,
2(B).SRI HARISH.N, MAJOR, S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO,
RESPONDENT NO.2(A) AND 2(B) R/A #24, SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST ‘B’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAMA BHAT K., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.8763/2022(GM-RES) DATED 22.04.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FORM ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
The learned counsel for the parties are not at issue that the writ appellants who claim to be the tenants of the property in dispute can stake their claim before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act').
2. A perusal of the order of the learned Judge that is sought to be challenged in the instant writ appeal reflects that a judgment in the case of Sri.Abdul Khader
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022
Vs. Sadath Ali Siddiqui and Another reported in ILR 2022 KAR 13 has been relied upon to dismiss the petition on the ground to reject the prayer for interim stay.
3. We have perused the aforesaid judgment Abdul Khader (stated supra) and we find that the same is based after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and Others reported in AIR 2016 SCC 530 and the learned Judge, has, therefore, correctly rejected the application for interim stay.
4. In the aforesaid judgment of Abdul Khader, it has been held that it is for the tenants to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
5. Under the circumstances, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the appeal is dismissed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022
6. Since we have dismissed the appeal, the deposit of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, by the appellant Nos.1 to 6 may be returned to them by the Registry, as per rules.
7. Since, a conditional interim order was already granted by this Court and in view of the submission being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we provide that the appellants No.1 to 7 shall not be dispossessed for a period of one month from today from the property in dispute.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE
PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8