- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 32394 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MR VIJAYA B., S/O.VISHWANATHA RAI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SY.NO.179/4C2, GANDODI HOUSE, MODANKAPU POST, BANTWAL MOODA VILLAGE BANTWAL THALUK. DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 219 2. SMT. ANUPAMA RAI P., W/O. VIJAYA B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, GANDODI HOUSE, R/AT SY.NO. 179/4C2, MODANKAPU POST, BANTWAL, MOODA VILLAGE BANTWAL THALUK DAKSHIN KANNADA- 574 219 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. THOUSIF AHAMMAD A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 AND: 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, LEGAL AND RECOVERY DEPARTMENT CENTRAL BANK ROAD, SVC CO-OPERAT REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.1, 2ND FLOOR, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALORE- 560 018 2. SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., G.H.S ROAD BRANCH MANGALORE, D.K -575 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUPREETH, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 29/09/2025 IN NO. SVC.L AND R.BNG/80/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A SO FAR A PETITIONER CONCERN. 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:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, the petitioners would most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: i. Issue a writ of certiorari, to set aside the auction notice dated 29.09.2025 in No.SVC:L&R:BNG/80/2025-26 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice so far a petitioners concern. ii. Issue any other order or direction under the facts and circumstances of the present case, to grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble court would deem fit to be granted, in the interest of justice and equity so far a petitioners concern.” 2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have availed the loan from the respondent/bank by mortgaging the schedule property. The petitioners have requested the bank for settlement of the loans transactions, but the respondent/ bank had not considered the request made by the petitioners. The bank had not issued any demand notice as required under law. The bank is proceeding with the matter without following the due process of law. During the course of arguments, when - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 this matter came up for “preliminary hearing”, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the property in the year 2019 for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and the same is put to auction for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- reserved price by the respondent/bank. Considering the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had passed an interim order on 29.10.2025 which reads thus: “The present writ petition is filed questioning the auction notice dated 29.09.2025 in No.SVC:L&R:BNG/80/2025-26 issued by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have purchased the property in the year 2019 and mortgaged the same in the year 2019. It is submitted that they have availed loan of Rs.32,00,000/- and the outstanding amount is Rs.38,85,000/-. It is submitted that the property which is purchased at Rs.40,00,000/- in the year 2019 is put to auction and the reserved price is Rs.20,00,000/-. Even after this property is sold still the petitioners have to pay the remaining amount. The respondent/bank only with an intention to cause loss to the petitioners and for the best reasons known to them , the property is put to auction at reserved price of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. Though this Court is conscious of the scope of intervention, still this Court is inclined to interfere in the proceedings issued under the SARFAESI Act. This Court had perused the sale deed of the year 2019 where the borrower had purchased the property for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Now, the reserved - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 price is at Rs.20,00,000/-. In the light of the above discussion, auction dated 29.10.2025 is stayed. If the auction is conducted, it shall not be finalized. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners shall take out hand summons on the respondent and shall file a memo to that effect by 10.11.2025 or else, the stay granted by this Court stands automatically vacated without further reference to this Court. List this matter on 11.11.2025.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank had filed objections and submits that by the time the interim order of this Court was communicated, the bank had conducted the auction and the highest bidder had paid 25% of the amount. It is submitted that in fact the petitioners have sent a letter to the bank stating that from 12.12.2024, the bank has seized the property and not been able to sell the same to any party. Therefore, the petitioners have requested the bank to sell the property to their relative Prathima Rai for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- otherwise it will generate much interest. Hence, requested the bank to sell the property at the earliest. Then on 16.10.2025, the bank had replied to the petitioners stating that the bank is going to conduct the auction on 29.10.2025, if the relative is interested to purchase the same, the petitioners an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 advise him/her to participate in the e-auction and purchase the property as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is submitted that this is the sixth auction and in the first auction the reserved price was fixed at Rs.39,00,000/- and the auction could not be conducted as no buyers came forward. Hence, for every auction they have reduced the value by 10% and further, the letter that was issued by the petitioners reveals that there were no purchasers to buy the property. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that the petitioners have suppressed all these aspects and came before this Court. 4. In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are buyers and if this Court permits, they would be able to sell the property at a better price than what the bank had sold, it would be of some use to the petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court had perused the affidavit and the submissions that are made by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of “preliminary hearing” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53495 WP No. 32394 of 2025 with regard to the property being sold at Rs.20,00,000/- which is purchased at Rs.40,00,000/-, when they are aware of all these aspects and they have addressed a letter to the bank, nothing has been stated before this Court. In fact, it is a case where the petitioners have come before this Court with suppression and misrepresentation of facts. The party who comes before this Court with suppression and misrepresentation of facts is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, this Court do not find any legal grounds to pass any order in favour of the petitioners. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23