- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30830 WP No. 22277 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22277 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VEENA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE BASAVARAJU H S, 2. SANGEETHA D/O LATE BASAVARAJU H S, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. VEERESH H S AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAVARAJU H S, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 666/1, JAGALURU ROAD, BESIDES THIMMAPPA TEMPLE, INAM NAGAR, DAVANAGERE 577001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SHRUTHI S P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S FIVE STAR BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW NO. 27, OLD NO. 4 TAYLORS ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30830 WP No. 22277 of 2025 KILPAUK, CHENNAIAN 600010 (A REG NON BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION REG BY AUTHORISED OFFICER OR MANAGER) 2. M/S FIVE STAR BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED NO. 742, DR MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE 560086 (A REG NON BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION) REP BY AUTHORISED OFFICER OR MANAGER 3. M/S FIVE STAR BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED NO. 432/B, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, K B EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE -577001 (A REG NON BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION) REP BY AUTHORISED OFFICER/MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANDE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 28.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE R1 (ANNEXURE-E). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30830 WP No. 22277 of 2025 ORAL ORDER As it is stated by Sri Vinaya Keerthi M, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners do not propose to rely upon the contents of Annexure-A [at Page-13], the office objections stand overruled. The petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and this Court must opine that the petitioners must work out their remedy under the aforementioned Act and there is no cause for exercising this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, subject to all just exceptions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV