- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32395 WP No. 1711 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.1711 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAVINDRACHARI G K S/O LATE KODANDARAMACHARI, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.53, VEERABHADRASWAMY NILAYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BYADAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM, BANGALORE-560091 2. SMT GOVINDAMMA W/O LATE KODANDARAMACHARI, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.53, VEERABHADRASWAMY NILAYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BYADARAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM, BANGALORE-560091 [NOTE. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED FOR PETITIONER NO.2] …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL FINANCE BRANCH, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32395 WP No. 1711 of 2022 NO.91/1, FIRST FLOOR, OPPOSITE SAFINA PLAZA, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DTD 29.12.2021 AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PROPOSING SALE ON 31.01.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO.IT/EA- 1927/001/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK 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 There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners and office objections are not complied even though this Court had shown indulgence by granting an interim order. 2. It appears in the petition that the petitioners have challenged the auction notice issued by the respondent in exercise of its powers under Rule 8 (6) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32395 WP No. 1711 of 2022 Interest Rules, 2002. It is also stated that the petitioners have not complied the order dated 28.01.2022. 3. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others – AIR 2010 SC 3413 and South Indian Bank Ltd., vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and Others – (MANU/SC/0400/2023), the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the auction notice before the Tribunal in accordance with law. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SN