- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29700 WP No. 9536 of 2026 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. 9536 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. PRAKRUTHI N. RAJ D/O LATE G.S.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS RAVINDRANAGAR LAY OUT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.SATHISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE DEPARTMENTAL ARBITRATOR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, BALRAJ URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER THE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29700 WP No. 9536 of 2026 CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, BALRAJ URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 & R3; SRI. DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AUCTION NOTICE DATED 02.03.2026 (FORM 9 ISSUED UNDER RULE 38 (2) (D) VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, INCLUDING THE COST OF THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29700 WP No. 9536 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of a loan advanced by respondent no.2-Society. 2. It is seen that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Sections 105 and 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 3. On 07.04.2026, this Court had passed the following order: "Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri. J. Sathishkumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that, the father of the petitioner is a borrower from respondent No.2-Bank and has availed loan to an extent of Rs.14,27,87,500/- and same has become NPA. However, the property in question with regard to which the order of attachment has been passed and the auction notice dated 02.03.2026 (Form-9 issued under Rule 38(2)(D)) (Annexure-B), by the respondent No.3, wherein the property belonging to the petitioner has been attached, who is neither a borrower nor a guarantor to the loan, and therefore sought for interference of this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29700 WP No. 9536 of 2026 Per contra, Shri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel representing on behalf of Shri. Dayanand S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 Bank, submitted that, since the father of the petitioner is no more, and originally the property belonging to the father of the petitioner has been transferred in favour of the petitioner and therefore, sought to justify the impugned order. In the light of the submissions made by the other counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the interim prayer sought for by the petitioner, I am of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner being neither a borrower nor a guarantor to the loan availed by her father from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Bank, the auction notice (Annexure-B), dated 02.03.2026, issued by the respondent No.3 be hereby stayed in so far as the property belonging to the petitioner is concerned. It is also to be noted that, till the conclusion of the proceedings in this Writ Petition, the petitioner is directed not to create any third party rights in respect of the property in question." 4. As the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Hence, the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29700 WP No. 9536 of 2026 ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in the manner known to law; (ii) The interim order granted by this Court on 07.04.2026 shall continue for a further period of four weeks from today; (iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if he were to file an appeal; (iv) It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and it is for the appellate authority concerned to decide the matter in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77