Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1168 (KAR)

SRI BASAVARAJ v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

WP/7371/2023 · 2026-02-24

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11465 WP No. 7371 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 7371 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WARD NO 13, JULAI NAGARA, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL 583227 (TENANT IN SCHEDULE PROPERTY) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V MOHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAMB BENGALURU, 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING LHO CAMPUS, No.65, ST. MARKS ROAD Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11465 WP No. 7371 of 2023 BENGALURU – 560 001. REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER / ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (BANKING COMPANY LENDER) 2. THIRUMALA RICE INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS PARTNER, T K RAMESH BABU, S/O LATE G B KRISHNAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PLOT NO.5A/2, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA LINGAPURA, SIRA ROAD, TUMKUR 572106 (LESSOR/OWNER OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHEELA DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN CP NO.823/2023 SRI. LAKSHMI K VARDARAJ HAS FILED VK FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 1ST RESPONDENTS IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE VIDE REF No.SBI/SAMB/SARF/TRI 728 AS PER (ANNEXURE-A) DATED 22/02/2023 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HIS LEASEHOLD PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11465 WP No. 7371 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 2. The petitioner has got an equal efficacious remedy. However, without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, the petitioner has filed this petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36