- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30501 WP No. 16473 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16473 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. HILDA SUMANGALA W/O LATE.S. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 60 YEARS, NO 639, 10TH E MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR 6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. MAHALINGA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RBL BANK LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHAVEER BUILDING, SHREE SHAHU MARKET, SHAHUPURI, KOLHAPUR-416001, BRANCH OFFICE AT PRESTIGE TOWERS, FIRST FLOOR, 99 AND 100, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SRI.RAJESH KUMAR.A 2. SRI. S.NIRANJAN MURTHY, S/O LATE C. SRIKANTHACHAR, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 639, GROUND FLOOR 10TH E MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. G.R.ANANTHASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30501 WP No. 16473 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R1 BANK TO NOT TO DISTURB THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 39TH ACMM AT BENGALURU, IN CRL. MISC.NO.4184/2021 DTD 30.11.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.4184/2021 under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' for short). She has also sought for an order to directing the respondent No.2 to refund a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the lease amount paid by her at the time of taking the secured asset on lease. 2. The petitioner claims that the secured asset was given on lease to her husband on 08.10.2011 and that after his death, she has continued in possession. It is claimed that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30501 WP No. 16473 of 2022 owner of the leased property had mortgaged it to the respondent-bank from 28.02.2017 and fell due and that the respondent-bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to bring the secured asset for sale to recover the dues. It is contended that the respondent-bank had taken out proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and taken possession of the property. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. When this petition was taken up on 25.09.2023, this Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a senior citizen is before this court seeking relief on the ground that the petitioner being a lessee of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent which has been mortgaged with the 1st respondent Bank, is facing problem of dispossession at the hands of the 1st respondent Bank. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakhs with the 2nd respondent and the petitioner will be satisfied if she is able to realize the said sum of Rs.15 lakhs and she will not come in the way of the 1st respondent conducting the auction of the immoveable property. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner is only occupying the ground floor and the petitioner is not concerned with the other floors of the property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30501 WP No. 16473 of 2022 Having regard to the submissions made at the bar this court is of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent should be permitted to proceed to auction the property secured by the 1st respondent, which belongs to the 2nd respondent. From the sale proceeds after satisfying the outstanding amount which the 1 respondent has to receive from the 2nd respondent, from out of the remaining proceeds a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, if available may be kept in Deposit and informed to this court. Necessary orders will be passed in respect of the amount which the petitioner is to receive at the hands of the 2nd respondent. Consequently, the 1st respondent - Bank is permitted to proceed with the auction subject to the directions issued by this court." 3. When this petition is listed today, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'DRT' for short). He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and South Indian Bank Limited and Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another [(2023) SCC Online SC 432] and contended that the remedy available - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30501 WP No. 16473 of 2022 to the petitioner is to go before the Tribunal and not to file a writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 and their brothers are trying to dispose of the secured asset and pay off the dues to the bank as well as to the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, this petition is not maintainable before this Court and the appropriate remedy is to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the order dated 25.09.2023 extracted above, in the event the property is brought for sale by the bank, the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent-bank in allowing the prospective bidders to inspect the property and after the property is sold, if any excess is available in the hands of the respondent-bank, the same shall be utilized to refund a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30501 WP No. 16473 of 2022 proceeding that may be initiated by the petitioner before the DRT. 6. This petition is therefore disposed off on the above terms. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12