- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15038 WP No. 8057 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8057 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S BHEERESHWARA ENTERPRISES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.SANTHAKUMAR K.C. R/AT NO.E41, KAMBIPURA EAST SIDE KUMABLGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560 060 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: BANK OF BARODA ROSARB, REGIONAL OFFICE BANGALORE SOUTH 4TH FLOOR, VIJAYA TOWERS 41/2, TRINITY CIRCLE M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR.DEVI DAYAL …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23-02-2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15038 WP No. 8057 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 23- 02-2026 issued by the respondents vide ANNEXURE-H; b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider petitioner's OTS proposal in accordance with low vide Annexure-G; dated 20/2/2026 c) Declare that auction sale notice dated 16.01.2026 issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act & its further proceedings Respondent Bank Vide ANNEXURE-E is illegally invalid and liable to be set aside Pass such other orders which this Hon'ble court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that OTS proposal was earlier given and the petitioner has to pay the amount by 30.09.2022. Due to various reasons, they have not paid the amount with regard to the same, the matter is pending before the DRT. It is submitted that a direction may be given to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15038 WP No. 8057 of 2026 respondent/Bank to consider the case of the petitioner under the OTS. He has relied on an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Koneru Venu Madhav Vs. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank private Ltd1 dated 21.10.2022. He relied on paragraph Nos. 15, 16 & 18 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “15) It is no doubt true that, extending benefit of One Time Settlement is discretion of the Bank. It may also be true that the Petitioners could not have paid the amount in time due to COVID Pandemic. At the same time, it is to be noticed that in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank & Others V. Meenal Agarwal and Others, a positive direction cannot be given to the Bank, to offer One Time Settlement. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a direction given by Allahabad High Court to Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank, to consider granting One Time Settlement to a defaulter despite the Bank pleading that the provisions of SARFAESI Act have been initiated. 16) But, in the instant case, as stated above, One Time Settlement Scheme was extended to the Petitioners and CPK, J & TRR, J they have paid substantial amounts under the Scheme and could not repay the balance due as they became sick due to COVID. Under those circumstances, the judgment in the Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank may not apply to the case on hand. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that pursuant to an interim direction given by this Court, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid under OTS Scheme. That being the position and a substantial amount has been paid, a direction can be given to the Bank to extend time for payment of balance amount. 18) Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Bank to give some more time to the 1 2022 Supreme (AP) 688 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15038 WP No. 8057 of 2026 Petitioners to comply with the One Time Settlement Scheme by paying the balance amount with interest, if any. It is needless to mention that the Respondent Bank may fix a time limit for complying the same, within a period of four [04] weeks from today. Meantime, the Respondent Bank may not take any coercive steps.” Wherein, the Court has directed the Bank to grant some more time to comply with the One Time Settlement scheme for payment of the balance amount with interest. Relying on the above referred Judgment, learned counsel submits that there may be a direction by this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that writ petition is not maintainable before the DRT also. It is submitted that, in the light of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd 2 that there cannot be any mandamus to the bank for the One Time settlement, as it depends upon the business rules of the bank and the Courts cannot interfere with the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant General Manager State Bank Of India and Anr Vs. 2 2022 INSC 1168 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15038 WP No. 8057 of 2026 Tanya Energy Enterprises3 learned counsel has relied on para Nos.44 and 45 which reads thus: “44. For the reasons aforesaid, this civil appeal deserves to succeed. Dismissal of the intra-court appeal of the appellants by the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench is set aside together with the judgment and order of the Single Judge allowing the respondent’s writ petition because a relevant factor was kept out of its consideration, which has the effect of significantly impacting the outcome of the respondent’s application for OTS. 45. The appellants are free to proceed in accordance with law for enforcement of the security interest. At the same time, we also grant the respondent an opportunity to submit a fresh proposal for OTS but not under the OTS 2020 Scheme. If the terms and conditions put forth by the respondent are found reasonable, workable and acceptable, the appellants may take such decision on it as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances.” 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The judgment of the Hon’be Apex Court in the case of Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd (referred supra) is clear that there cannot be any direction to the Bank to grant the OTS, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case where the SA is pending before the DRT and already a OTS proposal which was given by the Bank is not honoured by the petitioner. In those circumstances, this court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of 3 2025 INSC 1119 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15038 WP No. 8057 of 2026 Constitution of India, is not inclined to pass any order or direct the Bank to consider the OTS. In that view of the matter this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24