- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31124 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJANNA H, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. LATE HANUMEGOWDA GADDAMBACHALAHALLI RAJAGATTA (P) DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL BANGALORE 561203 2. SMT. GAJALAKSHMI, AGAD ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O. RAJANNA H GADDAMBACHALAHALLI RAJAGATTA (P) DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL BANGALORE 561203 3. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY. T AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O. THIMMAIAH. R/AT NO. 41, GADDAMBACHALLI RAJAGATTA (P) DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL BANGALORE 561203. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED). …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 AND: 1. BANK OF INDIA DODDABALLAPURA BRANCH, SCOUT CAMP ROAD, 3RD WARD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, APPAREL PARK. DODDABALLAPURA 561203 BY CHIEF MANAGER. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE, C-5, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURIA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI 400051. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBITS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT PASSED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER-1 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II BANGALORE, IN TRC NO. 345/2019 (TA NO. 1511/2017) AT ANNX-A AND ETC. 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:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: (a) ISSUE, a writ of mandamus or any other Writ or direction directing the respondents No.2 & 3 to consider the representation of the petition dated 11.05.2024 in bearing No.KSDL/KMKA(CSR)2024-25/22/136 vide Annexure-K and furnish the status of project in question and entire information about the progress of the project and also sent back the unutilized amount to the petitioner company immediately. (b) GRANT such order or direction as deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.11 measuring 2 acres, 37 guntas situated at Thimmasandra Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru District. Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.150/2, measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Thimmasandra Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru District. Both the petitioners were agriculturists by occupation and they jointly operated a poultry-farming enterprise in Sy.No.11 and 150/2 of Thimmasandra Village. They availed a loan from the Bank for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 the purpose of developing and expanding their poultry-farming business. 3. On 26.09.2012, both the petitioners had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Bank. It is stated that as on the date of executing the mortgage deed dated 26.09.2012, the land was being used exclusively for agricultural purposes along with the poultry-farming activity. In view of the natural calamities petitioners suffered severe losses and they could not pay the amounts to the Bank. They have informed the Bank by giving a detailed representation dated 18.06.2015, narrating the losses sustained by them and seeking their assistance to rehabilitate their business. They have also requested the Bank to re-sanction a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to enable them to restart and continue their hen-breeding business by representation dated 18.06.2015. But the Bank has failed to grant the financial assistance. It is stated that the Bank, instead of granting the requested relief and restructuring support, proceeded to classify the loan accounts of the petitioners as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and the recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by filing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 O.A.No.342/2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bengaluru, seeking a direction to recover from the petitioners an amount of Rs.1,35,33,435/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lakhs Thirty-Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Five). The same was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT-II), Bengaluru, where it was numbered as T.A.No.1511/2017. The Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru, by its order dated 19.06.2017, was pleased to dispose of T.A.No.1511/2017, allowing the application inter alia by directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,35,435/- with interest at 12% per annum, compounded half-yearly, and the petitioners were granted six months' time, i.e., from 19.06.2017 to 16.12.2017, to pay the said amount to the Bank. They have also come up with a settlement of the entire outstanding dues by offering a sum of Rs.52,00,000/- as a full and final settlement and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was offered to be paid upfront with a balance amount of Rs.51,50,000/- proposed to be deposited within 90 days from the date of the application, i.e., by 28.02.2018. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 4. The Bank had addressed a letter dated 08.05.2017 to the petitioners informing them of certain interest concessions and waiver of penal interest under the Mega Rin Mukti Shivirs (MRMS) Scheme. This was followed by another letter dated 02.07.2018 issued by the Bank to petitioner No.1, wherein the Bank proposed a One-Time Settlement (OTS) for a sum of Rs.96,80,000/-. But in the meantime, they approached the DRT for issuance of the recovery certificate pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2017 and the Tribunal was pleased to issue a recovery certificate vide certificate dated 25.04.2019. 5. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') on 31.08.2019. The petitioners have given a representation dated 18.08.2019. By reply dated 20.11.2019, they rejected the petitioners' proposal, terming the offering amount as "too meagre," and called upon the petitioners to submit a revised and enhanced OTS amount for reconsideration. It is stated that the respondents failed to consider the representation in its proper perspective. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 6. Vide letter dated 15.05.2023, once again proposed for OTS, which was similar in nature to the earlier proposal dated 02.11.2017. However, the letter was ambiguous, vague and completely irrelevant to the interregnum. The Bank, once again, approached DRT-II by filing M.A.No.2/2024 seeking the issuance of a fresh recovery certificate in respect of Sy.No.150/2 and that came to be issued on 18.02.2025. After that, they received a notice titled “Notice for Settling a Sale Proclamation” in TRC No.345/2019 in TA No.1511/2017 issued under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Pursuant to the issuance of the said notice, the DRT-II, Bengaluru, proceeded to initiate coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioners by issuing a Warrant of Attachment and a notice of Sale Proclamation. It is stated that the procedure that was initiated by the Bank is bad in law. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court questioning the Warrant of Attachment passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-II and seeking a direction to set aside the same. 7. When this matter came up before this Court on 16.10.2025, submission was made before this Court by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they are ready to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by 30.10.2025 and within a short time they will negotiate with the Bank and pay the remaining amount and they will also close loan account. This Court has given liberty to the respondents to go ahead with the sale as per the notice dated 11.09.2025. However, they shall not confirm the sale till 03.11.2025 and the petitioners shall pay the amount by 30.10.2025 and the matter was directed to be listed on 31.10.2025. 8. When the matter came up on 31.10.2025, again an opportunity was given at the request of the petitioners, and the matter was directed to be listed on 10.11.2025. The petitioners had failed to pay the amount, the counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Bank submits that the auction purchaser has paid Rs.4,21,00,000/-. Out of the said amount. The auction purchaser has deposited Rs.41,00,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), which is 10% of the bid amount and as per the terms and conditions of the sale notice, the successful purchaser has to pay 25% of the sale amount i.e. Rs.1,05,25,000/- including EMD, on or before 18.10.2025 by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 3.00 p.m. and remaining 75% of the amount has to be paid on or before 31.10.2025. It is submitted that the auction purchaser has now deposited the entire amount and the learned counsel for the Bank has placed a copy of the Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.3,15,75,000/- before this Court. 9. It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to comply with the interim order, and the writ petition needs to be dismissed. Further, it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petitioners have to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 10. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the petitioners have an alternative remedy considering the submission made that they will pay the entire amount this Court had granted interim order, petitioners have not complied with the interim order. The sale went on and the auction purchaser has paid the entire amount. Hence, this Court do not filed any reasons to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46081 WP No. 31124 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11