- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27678 WP No. 8282 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 8282 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. URS SAFERYDE LLP NO. 22, 2ND FLOOR, SRIKANTAN LAYOUT, CRECENT ROAD CROSS, KUMARA PARK EAST, HIGH GROUNDS, NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. K. RAKESH RAJE URS, S/O LATE G. KRISHNE URS, AGED 49 YEARS. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY REGISTRATION ACT, 1956. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CANARA BANK MADHAVANAGAR BRANCH, NO. 12/6 KUMARCOT LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27678 WP No. 8282 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND REGIONAL HEAD CANARA BANK, SPENCER S TOWERS, #86, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. PRERANA MOTORS (P) LTD VEENI COURT, 132/15, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY REGISTRATION ACT, 1956 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI RISHABHA RAJ THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) *** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER BEARING NO.CB-0788/2024-25/02 DATED 14.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL MATTERS LIST THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27678 WP No. 8282 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the communication at Annexure-'R' dated 14.03.2025 issued by the respondent Bank relating to the loan account bearing No.170013783622. The respondent Bank has asserted that the petitioner was granted loan facility and was required to pay the dues. The details of amount due is also mentioned in the notice. 2. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to treat the petitioner's loan account as NPA (Non-performing Asset) and not to pass any adverse observations regarding the repayment. 3. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, including that the respondent No.3 has not delivered the vehicles to the petitioner and if that were to be so, the question of petitioner making repayment under the loan account would not arise. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27678 WP No. 8282 of 2025 4. The respondent No.3, on the other hand, would contend that delivery of vehicles has been made at the instance of petitioner to certain third parties and have cleared their obligation of delivery of vehicles. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 cannot come in the way of servicing the loan. 6. Sri Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the correspondence of the Bank would indicate the absence of delivery and accordingly, the Court ought to entertain the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the disputed questions, if any, between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, are one that could be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings and cannot be considered for adjudication in the present proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27678 WP No. 8282 of 2025 The communication at Annexure-'R' prima facie is a mere demand and cannot be a cause of action for issuance of writ to set aside such communication in the present proceedings. 8. It is noticed that it would not be appropriate to enter into the adjudication of inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in the present proceedings. Noticing that Annexure-'R' is only a notice/communication and if respondent Bank were to take measure under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT or to take recourse to any other proceedings to have the dispute with respondent No.3 settled as is permissible in law. 9. As the petitioner is being relegated to avail of the substantive remedy as is permissible in law in terms of observations made hereinabove, the respondent Bank is restrained from taking any precipitative steps insofar as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27678 WP No. 8282 of 2025 intimation to rating agency, if not done as on date, for a period of two weeks. 10. Needless to state that upon expiry of time stipulated, i.e. two weeks, the direction to the respondent Bank not to precipitate would cease to operate. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR