- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44186 WP No. 31903 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31903 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR GAURAV SHARMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA R/AT NO.39, JOHN BULL STREET BENGALURU-560047 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K S PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING, SBI LHO CAMPUS NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD. BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER SMT. HEMALATHA P K …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHITHRA NIRMALA P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44186 WP No. 31903 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 04.10.2025, ISSUED FOR THE RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO PENDING DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND INITIATING FURTHER ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE NOTICE DATED 04.10.2025, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44186 WP No. 31903 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari and consequently quash the Sale Notice dated 04.10.2025, issued by the respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had issued the impugned notice despite being aware of an interim moratorium. The impugned notice is against the mandate of the Insolvency Bankruptcy code and is not sustainable. It is stated that the petitioner had filed application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking insolvency resolution on 27.06.2024. As per Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the interim moratorium comes in to effect immediately upon the filing of the application i.e., from 27.06.2024. Hence, in these circumstances, the notice that is issued by the respondent/Bank is bad. 3. When the matter came up today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition as the respondents are not going ahead with the auction scheduled to be held on 04.11.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44186 WP No. 31903 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank has filed the objections. It is submitted that the Bank has no objection if the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has not even informed the Bank about the filing of application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It is submitted that the loan account was declared as a non performing asset. In spite of the repeated requests reminders and pleadings, as the petitioner had failed to make the payment, the Bank had issued a demand notice on 25.10.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the borrower and the petitioner as a Personal Guarantor to make payment of outstanding amount. After receiving the demand notice, the petitioner had not revealed to the respondent/Bank that he had already filed application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on 28.06.2024. It is submitted that the entire conduct of the petitioner is drenched with malafide intent and concealment. Learned counsel submits that if the Bank was aware that the petitioner had already filed application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, they would have approached the NCLT. It is submitted that the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44186 WP No. 31903 of 2025 had concealed all these material facts and came before this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition because the sale was not concluded and it is the grievance of the Bank that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Bank i.e., filing of the application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The respondent/Bank can have the said defense before the appropriate forum. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5