- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23099 OF 2023 (GM-KSFC) BETWEEN: SRI.C. VENKATESHALU SON OF LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY ENGINEER, RAILWAYS, RESIDING AT NO.5A, 3RD A CROSS, 4TH MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAMY N.B.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951, HEAD OFFICE: KSFC BHAVAN, NO.1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SRI GANESH KODANDARAM MAJOR BY AGE,NO. NO.729, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, GEETHANJALI LAYOUT, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALIPATIL P.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND THE R2 TO FORTHWITH HAND OVER VACANT POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE NO.729, SITUATED AT 4TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, GEETHANJALI LAYOUT, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560075 FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES AND ATTACHMENTS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:- (a) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ or Order or direction in the nature of Writ directing the first Respondent and the second Respondent to forth with hand over vacant possession of the house No.729, situated at 4thMain Road, 1st Block, Geethanjali Layout, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560075 free of encumbrances and attachments; (b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ or Order or direction in the nature of Writ declaring the sale deed dated 30.08.2013 executed by the first Respondent in favour of the second respondent bearing document No.INR-1-04412-2013-14 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, Bangalore, (Annexure 'H') and recorded in C.D. No.INRD75 conveying the house No. 729, situated at 4th Main Road, 1st Block, Geethanjali - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 Layout, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 075 in favour of the second Respondent is executed without authority and hence null and void. c) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ or Order or direction in the nature of Writ declaring the mortgage deed dated 28.09.2013 executed by the second Respondent bearing document No.INR-1- 05029-2013-14 registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Indiranagar, Bangalore mortgaging the house No. 729, situated at 4th Main Road, 1st Block, Geethanjali Layout, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore - 560 075, reflecting in Annexure-H, is executed consequentially without authority and hence null and void. d) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ or Order or direction in the nature of Writ directing the 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore to file a complaint to the jurisdictional police against the first Respondent for filing false documents (Annexure "D") in the proceedings Crl. Misc. No. 75 of 2011; and e) grant a total damages of Rs. 26,37,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six crores Thirty seven lakhs and thirty thousand) in the sense of money, loss of comfort, mental agony, health, family disruption etc due to the illegal acts of the first Respondent i.e a sum of Rs. 21,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs and thirty thousand) towards rent paid and further amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) per month from the date of petition till date of filing the petition and further rent amount that may accrue till date of handing over possession of his house No. 729, situated at 4th Main Road, 1st Block, Geethanjali Layout, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore - 560 075, further damages for unjust enrichment of Rs.24.16 crores and compensation for legal injury amounting to a sum of Rs.2 crores; along with interest on quarterly rests at 20.5% per annum from date of petition till date of payment; and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 f) pass further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.1- Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) on 17.03.1997 for the purpose of his borewell business against the security and hypothecation of the movable and immovable assets. Admittedly, petitioner defaulted in servicing the loan resulting in issuance of demand notice on 15.10.1998. Non compliance of which led respondent-KSFC initiating certain action in the nature of sale of movable assets recovering a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- on 15.03.2002. Thereafter, respondent-KSFC appears to have filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2006 under Section 31(1)(A)(A) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 on 23.02.2006. The said petition came to be dismissed on 15.11.2011 as having barred by time. Respondent-KSFC appears to have filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal against order of dismissal in MFA.No.221/2012, which also resulted in dismissal by order dated 04.02.2014 as against which, respondent KSFC had preferred a Special Leave - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 Petition before the Apex Court, which also resulted in dismissal on 11.11.2016, however, reserving liberty to the respondent KSFC to seek review of the impugned order. Accordingly, a review petition came to be filed by the Respondent-KSFC in Review Petition No.140/2017. Even the said review petition came to be dismissed on 24.08.2023. 3. In the meanwhile, the respondent KSFC had also initiated proceedings under the provision of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for brevity 'SARFAESI Act'), by issuing notice under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act. Being aggrieved, petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in SA.No.46/2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, Karnataka. By order dated 22.08.2012, the said application was partly allowed setting aside the notice as illegal. However, a liberty was reserved to the Authorized Officer to initiate fresh auction sale notice and proceedings in respect of the secured asset in terms of law. The said order specifically rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of possession of Secured Assets. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 4. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein had filed in W.P.No.9335/2013 which was dismissed by order dated 27.06.2013, since there was alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Pursuant to thereof petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, which was dismissed on 02.01.2018 as having barred by time. Against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition W.P.26271/2018 which came to be disposed of directing Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter subject to petitioner depositing Rs.50,00,000/- before the Appellate Authority within one month. It was made clear that if no such deposit was made, petitioner was not entitled for protection. Against which the petitioner appears to have filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.3980/2019. Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal as not entertainable by its order dated 12.03.2020. 5. In light of the aforesaid facts learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the application that was filed by the respondent - KSFC under Section 31(A)(A) of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, was dismissed as far back on 15.11.2011 as barred by time, it was not open for the respondent-KSFC to have initiated the parallel proceedings in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 respect of the time barred debt. Therefore, he submits the auction which was conducted by the respondent-KSFC is illegal and the petitioner is entitled for restoration of the property and consequent reliefs as sought for. 6. In response learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-KSFC taking this Court to the provisions of Section 46-B of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation Act, Section 34 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as well as Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, submits that remedy available to the Respondent-KSFC, under the KSFC Act is in addition to remedy available under other provisions of the Statue and is not in derogation to the said statutes. He submits initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not be barred in any way, for respondent having initiated the proceedings under the KSFC Act. He submits in any case since, the challenge mounted by the petitioner for the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act have resulted in rejection and the same having attained finality, petitioner under the guise of present petition cannot seek to circumvent the legal consequences thereof. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the respondent - KSFC under the provisions of Section 31 of the KSFC Act have resulted in dismissal, on the question of debt having been barred by time. This is the core basis upon which the petitioner is before this Court seeking restoration of the property which was auctioned/sold in a public auction by the Respondent-KSFC invoking the provision of the SARFAESI Act and for other relief. 9. Section 46-B of the KSFC Act reads as under:- "Effect of Act on other laws.—The provision of this Act and of any rule or orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in the memorandum or articles of association of an industrial concern or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, but save as aforesaid, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern." 10. Section 34 of the DRT Act reads as under:- "34. Act to have overriding effect.—(1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (62 of 1984), [the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989)]." 11. Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, reads as under:- 37. Application of other laws not barred:-The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force. 12. Perusal of the provisions of Section 46-B of KSFC Act clearly indicates that the steps to recovery of dues as contemplated under the KSFC Act are in addition to the other provisions of the statue and not in derogation of the same. Similar language is applied in Section 34 of the Debt Recovery Act and Section 37 of SARFARSI Act. 13. Thus the aforesaid three statutes though promulgated acts differently but for the only purpose and object of recovering the public dues. Merely because the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 petition having been dismissed under KSFC Act, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent would not be an impediment in Respondent - KSFC initiating proceedings under SARFAESI Act. 14. Further, whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent - KSFC under the SARFAESI Act, are time barred or not is not an issue in this matter. Therefore, this Court would not delve into the said aspect of the matter. 15. Nonetheless since the challenge mounted by the petitioner to the proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act have resulted in their dismissal by the orders dated 22.08.2012 passed in SA.No.46/2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal which, and in light of the subsequent order dated 27.06.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9335/2013 and order dated 02.01.2018 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in AIR (SA)544/2013 and the same not having been questioned, by the petitioner, this Court cannot show any indulgence in this writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture seeks liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as available - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11035 WP No. 23099 of 2023 challenging the order passed under SARFAESI Act. Recording the said submission, petition is dismissed. 17. Petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available and permissible under law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT-SG