Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19693 (KAR)

MRS PADMAJA S v. M/S CANARA BANK

WP/26800/2024 · 2026-06-08

Jyoti M

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27206 WP No. 26800 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 26800 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. PADMAJA S., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE DINESH M.C., 2. MR. UMESH M.C., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O M.K.CHEENEGOWDA, 3. SMT. SUSHMA K.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O. MR. UMESH M.C., ALL ARE R/AT NO.1545, PID NO.12-1-505-35C, LAYADA BEEDI, KOTE, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-562160. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.D.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESHA H.E., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. CANARA BANK, B.M.ROAD, BENGALURU-526160. REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27206 WP No. 26800 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.V.D.Siddappa, counsel on behalf of Sri.Ramesha H.E., for the petitioners and Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Declare that the Notice dated 25.09.2024 Ref No.ROMDY/CHANNAPATNA/24 produced at Annexure-C is illegal and quash the same; (ii) Allow this writ petition with costs; and (iii) Grant any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interests of justice. 3. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The relief - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27206 WP No. 26800 of 2024 sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23