- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 34775 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MS. MALAVIKA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O LATE V.G. SIDDHARTHA, RESIDING AT NO.28, 9TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ALSO AT 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU. 2. MR. S. AMARTHAYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE V.G. SIDDHARTHA, RESIDING AT NO.28, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080. 3. MR. ISHAAN SIDDHARTHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. V.G. SIDDHARTHA, RESIDING AT NO.28, 9TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ALSO AT 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU. 4. MS. VASANTHI HEGDE MOTHER OF LAE MR. V.G. SIDDHARTHA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.28, 9TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ALSO AT 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: BANK OF BARODA STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, 45 MOORE, STREE, JBAS BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, CHENNAI-600 001, THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MR. K. BASKARAN. HEAD OFFICE AT: BLD.41/2, M.G. RD., YELLAPPA GARDEN, YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT, SIVANCHETTI GARDENS, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE (VK NOT FILED)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: (A) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 17.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) OA.NO.6/2023 REJECTING THE IA NO.49/2024, IA NO.50/2024 AND IA NO.51/2024 PASSED BY THE LD. DRT; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order on IA Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’ for brevity). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The respondent filed an original application in OA No. 6 of 2023 on the file of DRT-I, Bangalore. The National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘NCLT’), Chennai, in IBA No.73 of 2020 passed an order to approve a resolution plan dated 08.01.2022, as amended on 11.02.2022. The petitioners filed their written statement. The petitioners filed IA Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 before the DRT-I, Chennai, for striking off the petitioners No.2 to 4 herein from the array of the parties of the original application on the ground that they have not inherited any estate from late V. G. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 Siddhartha. The borrower filed an IA No.76 of 2024 before the learned DRT, Chennai, for striking off the borrower from the array of the parties of the original application stating that no relief is claimed against the borrower in the original application. The said application was allowed. The DRT without assigning any reasons disposed of IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024. Hence, the petitioners aggrieved by the order on IA Nos.49 to 51 of 2024, filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent bank. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have filed IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024 for deleting their names from the array of the parties on the ground of parity in original application. He submits that the DRT, Chennai, without assigning any reasons, has passed an order in a single line stating that the applications are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 disposed of. He submits that the impugned order passed by the DRT, Chennai, is a cryptic order and has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition directing the DRT to reconsider IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024 and to pass the appropriate order after assigning the detailed reasons. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank supported the impugned order, and contended that the tribunal has considered the entire record and passed the appropriate orders on the said applications. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent bank had approached the DRT-I by filing O.A.No.6 of 2023, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 arraying the petitioners as respondents in OA No. 6 of 2023. The petitioners herein filed IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024 seeking a prayer to delete their names from the array of the parties on the ground of parity with the original borrower whose name was deleted from the register of company, from the array of the parties. 9. The petitioners have raised several grounds in the applications, and the respondent has filed objections to the said applications. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the DRT, it is evident that the DRT has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioners in the aforesaid applications and the objections filed by the respondent bank. 10. The impugned order passed by the DRT is a non-speaking order and of non-application of mind. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal. Hence, only on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025 11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in O.A.No. 6 of 2023 rejecting I.A.Nos. 49 of 2024 to 51 of 2024 is hereby quashed. iii. I.A.Nos. 49 of 2024 to 51 of 2024 are restored. iv. The tribunal is directed to reconsider, and pass the appropriate order on the said applications after assigning the detailed reasons. v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. vi. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS