- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23808 WP No. 13831 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.13831 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S KALPJAIN MOTORWORLD LLP NO.15, 1-1, 18TH CROSS ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 055 ALSO, AT NO.78, ARSHINAKUNTE NELAMANGALA BANGALORE - 562 123. REGISTERED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP RULES, 2009 REP. BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER MR. BHARATESH KUMAR JAIN AGED 62 YEARS S/O MR. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN 2. MR. BHARATESH KUMAR JAIN AGED 62 YEARS S/O MR. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN 3. MS. PRASHASTI JAIN AGED 28 YEARS D/O MR. SUNIL JAIN 4. MS. MITAKSHI JAIN AGED 40 YEARS D/O MR. SUNIL JAIN Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23808 WP No. 13831 of 2026 ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS NO.2, 3 & 4 ARE R/A NO.15, 1-1, 18TH CROSS ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 055 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK MID-CORPORATE BRANCH NO.34, I MAIN ROAD SESHADARIPURAM BENGALURU- 560 020 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK ARM BRANCH-II, 2ND FLOORS CIRCLE OFFICE, SPENCER TOWERS NO.86, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C VINAYSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED VACATION NOTICE DATED 21.04.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK, AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23808 WP No. 13831 of 2026 ORAL ORDER In the petition, the petitioners seek the following relief's: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned “Vacation Notice” dated 21.04.2026 vide ANNEXURE-A issued by the 2nd Respondent Bank, as being illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent, its officers, agents or any person acting on its behalf from dispossessing the petitioners and/or any third-party occupants from the schedule property otherwise than in strict compliance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder; iii. Grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Bank has issued the Vacation Notice and talks are going on with regard to one time settlement. Further, it is submitted that it is a commercial as well as residential property and the respondents have not issued the notice on time and there is no occasion for them to respond to the same. Hence, the proceedings may be stayed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23808 WP No. 13831 of 2026 3. The learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that statutory proceedings were initiated in the year 2023 and thereafter they approached the NCLT and had the benefit of moratorium as such no proceedings were initiated by the Bank and recently NCLT has dismissed the petition on 05.03.2026. Thereafter the Magistrate has passed an order and the bank issued the Vacation Notice. It is submitted that looking at the substantial outstanding amount and the petitioners have alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the present writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, perused the material on record. 5. The outstanding loan amount according to the Bank is Rs.33 crore and odd and the petitioners have the benefit of moratorium for a period of two years. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the vacation notice and any other statutory proceedings initiated by the Bank, they can always seek appropriate remedy before the DRT which is effective, but they - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23808 WP No. 13831 of 2026 cannot come before this Court by filing the present writ petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy before the DRT within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petitioner shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 6. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SN