- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3475 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. NIRMAN VENTURES BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (PROPRITORSHIP CONCERN) AT NO.6A, SERENITY, 6TH FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, D PALYA OFF MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. AKSHYA SHIMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K.A., AT NO.445, 33RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. 2. MS. SHRUTHI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O SRI. NAGARAJ AT NO.445, 33RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DWARAKANATH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED ASSET RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MR. SHIVAKUMAR AND ALSO ITS REGD AND HEAD OFFICE AT PB NO.599, MAHAVEERA CIRCLE KANKANADY, MANGALURU - 575 002 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 2. SRI. KRISHNA SANKALP PRIVATE LIMITED AT NO.455, 33RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. K.A. RAGHAVENDRA THE REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASHWINI N. RAVINDRA FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATES FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NOC FOR SALE OF FLAT NO.G1 DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HERE UNDER, AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CONFIRM THAT IT WOULD GIVE NOC FOR SALE OF FLAT NO.G2 AGAINST PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION AND FOR SUCH OTHER WRIT DIRECTIONS, DECLARATIONS AND ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to issue NOC for sale of Flat No.G1 described in the schedule hereunder, and a writ of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to confirm that it would give NOC for sale of flat No.G2 against payment of the balance sale consideration and for such other writ directions, declarations and orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant including the costs of this petition.” 2. The respondent before this Court is Karnataka Bank Limited. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank had placed before this Court an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11869/2017 c/w W.P.No.27352/2016 dated 04.03.2020, arising in the case of Sri. Gautham vs. Karnataka Bank Limited. In the said case, the Co-ordinate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 Bench of this Court, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in MP Singh vs. Union of India1, has held that since the respondent bank is similarly situated, the instant writ petition requires to be rejected as not being maintainable. Accordingly, the present writ petition is rejected as not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in respect of the very same Karnataka Bank, such an order has already been passed by this Court, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after discharging the entire loan amount, the present proceedings were initiated, which made the petitioners to come before this court. It is submitted that the writ petition is maintainable as the bank is discharging the statutory functions and it is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. In these circumstances, the bank cannot be termed as a private bank and therefore, it is maintainable against the respondent. 1 (2013) AIR SCW 2545 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 6. The order that is referred to in Gautam's case (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has specifically held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Karnataka Bank Limited. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be considered. In this regard, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Limited,2, the Court in paragraph No.9 has observed as below: “9. We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable 2 (2025 INSC 117) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. (3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. (8) According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13365 WP No. 3475 of 2026 and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point.” 7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have to avail the appropriate remedy available to them under the law. In that view of the matter, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law. ii. The petitioners shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. iii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17