- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31336 WP No. 24380 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24380 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. PREETHI SHENOY W/O MR. P LAXMAN SHENOY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT S-64, "SYMPHONY", HIS GRACE APARTMENT, PAIS LANE, 2ND CROSS, OPP. B.S.N.L. COLONY, LADYHILL, MANGALORE - 575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHENOY M, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA M.G. ROAD BRANCH, MANGALORE CITY Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31336 WP No. 24380 of 2025 CORPORATION BUILDING, LALBAGH, MANGALORE - 575 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKARA A, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE DATED 30.07.2025 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT OF TIMES OF INDIA NEWSPAPER WHICH IS AT ANX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SALE NOTICE DATED 30.07.2025 AND ETC., 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:31336 WP No. 24380 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a borrower who is aggrieved by the secured creditors' decision to bring the secured assets to sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’] and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [for short, ‘the Rules 2002’]. The impugned notice by the respondent is dated 30.07.2025, and it is appended to the petition as Annexure-A. 2. Mr. Raghavendra Shenoy M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because: [a] The Respondents have notified sale of the secured assets to recover dues over Rs.7,00,00,000/- and the value of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31336 WP No. 24380 of 2025 secured assets is in a sum of Rs.11,60,00,000/-; [b] The respondent had to arrive at his reserved price based on evaluation by an approved Evaluator and after consultation with the petitioner as required under the Rules 2002; and [c] The Secured Creditor’s failure to consider the appropriate valuation report and to consult the petitioner is a procedural irregularity and that in such situations there would be an exception for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction notwithstanding the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The learned counsel, to support the last contention, proposes to rely upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6180 of 2023, which is decided on 04.06.2024. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31336 WP No. 24380 of 2025 3. At the outset, this Court must observe that the Apex Court, in umpteen matters, has reiterated that the Courts must be cautious and circumspect in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and this Court must refer to the following recent decision of the Apex Court in 'Phr Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank' [2024 SCC Online SC 528]. 4. This Court must next observe that the assertion on behalf of the petitioner that a particular valuation report had to be relied upon, but respondents have not and that the respondents should have consulted the petitioner under the aforesaid Rules are steeped in factual assertions, and these would be best examined in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31336 WP No. 24380 of 2025 not persuaded to interfere, and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions, to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK