- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9638 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE DASYNAIKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 15 2ND CROSS, KUVEMPU LAYOUT, CHIKKASANDRA, HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE 560002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INDIAN BANK MALLESHWARAM BRANCH NO 15, SARASWATHI COMPLEX 5TH CROSS, MALELSHWARAM BENGALURU 560003 REPRSENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER BANK MANAGER 2. SRI HARISH S, S/O SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 190/A 8TH CROSS, 19TH C MAIN Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 RAJAJINAGAR, 1ST N BLOCK BENGALURU 560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2024 IN RA(SA)152/2018 BY THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI, WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFORM THE ORDER DATED 03/08/2018 IN SA NO.87/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I BENGALURU, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been instituted impugning the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in RA (SA) 152/2018 arising out of SA 87/2018 on the file of DRT-1, Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 2. The petitioner is a borrower of the respondent-Bank and he has availed mortgage loan of Rs.24,00,000/- by mortgaging the sale deed of the property in question to secure the aforesaid loan advanced by the respondent No.1-Bank. The loan was repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.25,300/- each. 3. It appears that the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the installments and as on 07.12.2017, a sum of Rs.5,54,440/-was shortfall in payment of installments. 4. Earlier, on 07.08.2017, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- despite this payment, against the shortfall of Rs.5,44,440/-, the bank classified the loan account of the petitioner as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 02.09.2016. As the petitioner failed to comply with the demand notice, the bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 29.12.2016 and thereafter, issued an auction sale notice on 07.04.2017. The reserve price fixed for the property in question was Rs.40,00,000/-, the total outstanding amount including interest and other charges as of 31.05.2017 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 was Rs.26,48,346/-. The bank conducted auction sale proceedings of the property in question and the sale of the property was finalized to Rs.40,50,000/- and sale certificate dated 19.02.2018 came to be issued in favour of respondent No.2. 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the sale of his property, filed SA No.87/2018 before DRT-I, Bengaluru. The DRT-I vide order dated 03.08.2018 set aside the sale certificate dated 19.02.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 and quashed the sale. The bank was directed to refund the sale consideration of Rs.40,50,000/- to respondent No.2 within 15 days from the date of the order with simple interest @ 9% p.a., and respondent No.2 was directed to give back possession of schedule property to respondent No.1-bank against refund of sale consideration by respondent No.1-bank to the respondent No.2. The bank being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the DRT-I approached DRAT, Chennai in RA(SA)No.152/2018. 6. The DRAT, Chennai has allowed the appeal on the technical ground that the petitioner did not challenge the sale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 and he challenged only the sale certificate. We fail to comprehend the reasoning of the DRAT in allowing the appeal, when the petitioner has challenged the sale certificate, it means he has challenged the entire process of sale which culminated in issuance of sale certificate. The Tribunal has not gone into the merit of the case but allowed the appeal solely on technical ground. 7. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared nor he challenged the order passed by the DRT before the DRAT. It appears that respondent No.2 is not interested in the property and he is more interested to get his money back as directed by the DRT. 8. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed in RA (SA) 152/2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the DRAT, Chennai for fresh consideration on merits, in accordance with law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 iii. The parties are directed to appear before the DRAT on 18.06.2026. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RKA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5