- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9844 WP No. 884 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 884 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. C.M. MUPASIL @ SADDAM S/O C.M. IBRAHIM SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.38, EKINSA COLONY T.K.ROAD, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DIST. 2. MRS. SEEMA BANU W/O C.M.MUPASIL @ SADDAM R/AT NO.38, EKINSA COLONY T.K.ROAD, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DIST. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YOGESH B. POOJARI, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA B.H.ROAD, BHADRAVATHI BRANCH, BHADRAVATHI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PREETHU R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9844 WP No. 884 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT(S) TO QUASH THE E-AUCTION LETTER DATED 04.01.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the initiation of action by the respondent/Bank under the Provisions of SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners have already paid substantial amount and that a sum of Rs.4.5 Crores is due and payable. Therefore, he seeks eight weeks' time to ensure the payment of that said amount. 2. In response, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that the respondent/Bank has proceeded with the auction of the property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have initiated the proceedings under Section 17 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9844 WP No. 884 of 2022 of the SARFAESI Act by filing application No.301/2025 challenging the sale process and have obtained an interim order of stay. Therefore, she submits that the parallel proceedings in the present matter cannot be maintained. 3. Since the petitioners have already availed an alternative and efficacious remedy, keeping this matter pending would be superfluous exercise. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the balance amount, if any, will be paid, the petitioners are at liberty to exercise such a remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the respondent/Bank shall consider the same in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8