- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29573 WP No. 29451 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 29451 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VENU KRISHNA SON OF RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF H.NO.108549, VYASA PADMA NIVASA, MALLAR VILLAGE, KAAPU, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106. 2. GIRISH SHETTY SON OF KRISHNA SHETTY, RESIDENT OF H.NO.108550, NO.2-5, MATHRU NIVAS, GUNDARAKATTA, MALLAR, KAAPU, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 106. 3. VISHNUMURTHY, SON OF A.RAMAKRISHNA MANJITHAYA, RESIDENT OF H.NO.108270, NO.7-69(2), ASHIRVADA, 2ND CROSS, BENGRE ROAD, NADSAL, UDUPI - 574 111. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VACHAN G.A., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29573 WP No. 29451 of 2025 AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER, KUNDAPURA DIVISION, KUNDAPURA. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, MAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, KALMANJE TOWERS, LAL BAHUDOOR SHASTRI ROAD, AJJARAKADU, UDUPI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BANKER TO STOP ALL FURTHER SALE PROCESS IN PURSUANT TO THE SALE NOTICE DATED 21/08/2025 PRODUCED ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29573 WP No. 29451 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners, pursuant to a default committed in respect to loan borrowed from respondent No.2 - Society Bank. The proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). 3. It is seen that the petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Sections 105 and 106 of the Act. However, this Court had passed an interim order dated 25.09.2025 which reads as under: "Though this writ petition is not maintainable against the impugned order, in view of the efficacious remedy of the appeal available under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to pay up the entire amount due as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29573 WP No. 29451 of 2025 determined by the respondent No.1. He submits that the respondent No.2 has taken out proceedings for auction sale of the property of the petitioners and therefore prays that an interim protection be granted until the petitioners make appropriate arrangements to pay up the entire amount due. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2. Till the next date of hearing, further proceedings pursuant to the award dated 05.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 in case No.282/2023-24 and the consequent demand notice issued by the Additional Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Kundapura, dated 21.08.2025 are stayed, subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the amount demanded with the respondent No.2 within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not avail this opportunity, the respondent No.2 is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Hand delivery of this order is permitted." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29573 WP No. 29451 of 2025 4. Having noticed that the petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority in the manner known to law. However, the interim order granted by this Court on 25.09.2025 shall continue for a further period of four (4) weeks from today. 5. It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and if an appeal were to be filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the same in the manner known to law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 6. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if any appeal were to be filed by them. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28