Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 88351 (KAR)

MEENA BAI v. THE BANK OF BARODA

WP/23161/2025 · 2025-08-01

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29813 WP No. 23161 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23161 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MEENA BAI S/O. NAGESH RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. 55, 3RD CROSS, SUDHEENDRA NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, MALLESHWARAMA SWIMMING POOL BENGALURU 560003 2. MR. NAGESH RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. 55, 3RD CROSS, SUDHEENDRA NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, MALLESHWARAMA SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560003 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.R. RAGHAVENDRA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANK OF BARODA BANTWAL BRANCH, GANESHA BUILDING, B.C. ROAD, BANTWALA TALUK - 574219. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29813 WP No. 23161 of 2025 2. SRI. VACHANA SHETTY S/O. SANJEEV SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. SSA ROAD, VICTORY HARMONY APARTMENT, B BLOCK, NO.204, CHOLANAGARA R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 3. MRS. SHARMILA V.SHETTY, S/O. VACHAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. SSA ROAD, VICTORY HARMONY APARTMENT, B BLOCK, NO.204, CHOLANAGARA R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONERS FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29813 WP No. 23161 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners assert that they are in possession of certain properties as tenants under the second respondent and that they apprehend dispossession by the first respondent [a Bank] without due process of law. This Court is of the considered view that even if there is any occasion for protection, the petitioners must necessarily seek such protection under Section 17(4A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]. As such, the petition, subject to all just exceptions, stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB