- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14388 WP No. 6880 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6880 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. P. DEVAKI W/O LATE B. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SEETARAM LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR, MEDEHALLI MEGALA HALLY, CHITRADURGA-577 501 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, APMC BRANCH, DCRM COMPLEX, RMC ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE VACATION NOTICE DATED: 26.02.2026 IN REF NO. AMCC/HTL/33018232789 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT/ BANK IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14388 WP No. 6880 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "PRAYER THEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to - a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, quashing the vacation Notice dated 26.02.2026 in Ref.No.AMCC/HTL/ 33018232789 issued by the respondent/Bank is produced as ANNEXURE-L to the writ petition. b) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had availed financial assistance from the respondent/Bank. When the petitioner had failed to pay the loan amount, the respondent/Bank had initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent/Bank for one time settlement and the matter was settled at Rs.9,50,000/- and compromise settlement letter was issued by the Bank on 14.01.2026, an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14388 WP No. 6880 of 2026 amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid on 02.02.2026 and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid on 17.01.2026. Altogether, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. It is submitted that the respondent/Bank had filed Crl.Misc.No.44/2024 for recovery of the possession of the schedule property and an order was passed on 16.02.2026. Thereafter, the respondent/Bank had issued vacation notice to the petitioner dated 26.02.2026 without verifying the petitioner loan account and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued in tune with the pleadings and submitted that the notice issued by the respondent/Bank needs to be set aside. As per the settlement, when the amount is paid, the respondent cannot issue the impugned notice. 4. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner has initiated proceedings before the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Chitradurga in O.S.No.259/2024 and complaint before Consumer Redressal Forum at Chitradurga in CC.No.84/2024 against the Bank authorities, the aforesaid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14388 WP No. 6880 of 2026 cases have been withdrawn by the petitioner and there are no cases pending against the Bank authorities. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 14.01.2026 issued by the Bank, wherein it is stated that it is the one time proposal and as per that, the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- has been paid to the Bank towards the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs.12,16,755/- on the housing loan on or before 02.02.2026. The compromise was entered by the Bank on the condition that the petitioner shall submit duly signed notarized affidavit of withdrawing of all cases against SBI and its subsidiaries and not to demand against the Bank with further charges or compensation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/Bank that as per the one time settlement, the petitioner has not submitted the notarized affidavit of withdrawing all the matters against the Bank. As such, the respondent/Bank has issued the possession notice. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This Court is not able to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14388 WP No. 6880 of 2026 appreciate the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank. If the petitioner has not given any notarized affidavit to the respondent/Bank, the Bank at best can ask the petitioner or issue legal notice to the petitioner and as per the letter dated 14.01.2026, the petitioner has to give an affidavit. But the Bank cannot issue possession notice to the petitioner. It is nothing but abuse of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent/Bank with the power conferred on them under the SARFAESI Act cannot issue these kinds of notices to the borrower after the entire amount is paid only on the ground that she is not able to file an affidavit. The Act or the law does not permit them to give these kinds of notices after the amounts are paid. The Banks have to understand that the provisions which are applicable to the borrower also will apply to them and they are not above the law. This kind of high handedness on the part of the Bank cannot be appreciated. Even assuming that the cases are not withdrawn, if the petitioner comes before this Court with any relief against the Bank, the Court will hear the respondent/Bank and will pass appropriate orders. On this ground, vacation notice cannot be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14388 WP No. 6880 of 2026 issued. In these circumstances, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The impugned vacation notice dated 26.02.2026 issued by the respondent/Bank is set aside. ii. The respondent/Bank shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. iii. The costs of Rs.10,000/- shall be recovered from the officer who has initiated the proceedings after the amount is paid. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44