- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 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. 2211 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S MAYA HOTELS PVT. LTD. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY’S ACT, (NO 08-10878 OF 1990-91) REP. BY MS THIRTHA KUMARASWAMY DIRECTOR, NO.52/1, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S VENKATESHWARAN., ADVOCATE) AND: RECOVERY OFICER-2 DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, 4TH FLOOR, BSNL BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ADHERE TO THE LAWS OF LAND AND ADHERE TO THE SEC 52 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RELATING TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY BASED ON ANNEXURE-C (CERTIFICATE OF SALE). TO DIRECT THE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 RESPONDENT NOT TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TILL DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION AND TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AS PER THE HON’BLE APEX COURT AND HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA JUDGEMENTS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs: “A. To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent to adhere to the laws of land and adhere to section 52 of the transfer of property Act relating to the schedule property based on Annexure C ( Certificate of sale) B. To direct the respondent not to proceed further in the matter of transfer of property till disposal of this writ petition and to follow the directions as per the Hon’ble Apex court and High court of Karnataka Judgments highlighted in this case. C. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and the petitioner to be entitled to, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is the registered company under the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent sanctioned loan of Rs.4,60,00,000/-. Further, the petition has availed the loan of Rs.4,60,00,000/- including the takeover loan of Rs.2,38,00,000/- from Bank of India. The petitioner committed a default in repayment of the loan amount. Though the offer of OTS was made, it was cancelled on 09.01.2010. The petitioner sold the immovable properties and remitted entire sale proceeds to the Bank in repaying the loan amount. Further, the petitioner requested the Corporation Bank for reconsideration of the OTS offer through communication dated 01.10.2010. However, the Bank revived the OTS giving only 3 days to remit the balance amount of Rs.3,83,00,000/-. Further, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No. 613 of 2011 to consider the case of the petitioner for OTS, wherein this Court gave a stay and directed the petitioner to seek - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 alternate remedy before DRAT after depositing the balance amount of OTS as of 17.06.2012. It is contended that the petitioner have moved interim application before the respondent. However, the respondent ordered the confirmation of sale and issued the sale certificate in favor of the Bank. The petitioner also filed a writ petition in WP No. 38524 of 2017 assailing the confirmation of sale and sale certificate. It is contended that the property is undervalued. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is attempting to transfer the petition schedule property of the petitioner based on the invalid sale certificate. He submits that the petitioner have filed several interim application before the respondent, however, no orders have been passed on the said applications. He submits that, action of the respondent in transferring the property in question is in gross violation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that, the Recovery Officer issued the sale confirmation and sale certificate without proper valuation with approved value and allowed the bank itself to participate in the auction in the fraudulent manner. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that every steps taken by the respondent in the recovery proceedings is in compliance with the prescribed procedure under law. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is undisputed that, the petitioner is the registered company under the Companies Act. The petitioner availed a loan facility from the bank. However, the petitioner committed a default in repayment of the said loan amount. The petitioner repaid a meager amount - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 by selling the immovable properties out of the sale proceeds. Further, the petitioner sought for one time settlement scheme; however, the bank granted OTS by giving only 3 days time to remit the balance amount of Rs.3,83,00,000/-. The petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No. 613 of 2011 seeking to consider the case of the petitioner for the OTS. This Court disposed of the said petition with interim relief and directed the petitioner to approach the DRT for alternate relief. 8. Further, the recovery proceedings were initiated before the respondent. The respondent issued a sale confirmation and sale certificate dated 27.01.2015. Further, the petitioner also filed a writ petition in WP No. 38524 of 2017 assailing the confirmation of sale and sale certificate, wherein this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 20.10.2022, holding that the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy available under the relevant Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 9. From the perusal of the sale certificate, it is clear that, the sale certificate was issued on 27.01.2015 vide Annexure C. Further, on perusing the records annexed to the instant writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner had assailed the aforesaid sale confirmation and sale certificate before this Court in WP No.38524 of 2017, wherein this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 20.10.2022, holding that the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy available under the relevant Act. The petitioner ought to have approached the DRT seeking the reliefs as sought for in the instant petition since there was an equal efficacious remedy available therein. 10. Now, it is pertinent to take note of the following dates i.e., the sale certificate was issued on 27.01.2015, the writ petition in WP No. 38524 of 2017 was disposed of on 20.10.2022 and the instant writ petition is filed on 15.01.2025. Considering the same, it becomes clear that the petitioner has approached this Court after the lapse of more than 2 years from the date of disposal of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 aforesaid writ petition, wherein this Court had opined that the petitioner ought to have approached the DRAT under the provisions of the RDDBI Act, 1993. 11. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191 has held that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Further, the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 held that the Court must not condone gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or casual indifference, for to do so would undermine the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and destabilize, the certainty that limitation law seeks to secure. 12. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the authorities aforementioned, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches since the petitioner has approached this Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12181 WP No. 2211 of 2025 after more than 2 years from the date of disposal of aforesaid writ petition. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13