- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31635-DB WA No. 669 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 669 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. AYAZ PASHA S/O MOHAMMED ZAMEER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 19/1-3, KEMP ROAD PULKESHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 005 …APPELLANT (BY SRI TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO. 3 PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU - 560 018 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2025 IN W.P. NO.22477/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND GRANT THE PRAYERS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.22477/2023. [[ THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31635-DB WA No. 669 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A No.1/2026, the same is allowed. The 83 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22477/2023 (GM-RES). The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that he be declared a successful bidder in an e-auction of the subject property conducted on 21.09.2023. 3. The respondent bank had issued a public sale notice dated 19.08.2023 for the sale of the property described as Site No.157, being western portion situated at Banaswadi, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru and Site No.157/1, Banasawadi Gramatana, BBMP Ward No.88 of Banasawadi, Bengaluru [subject property] by an e-auction. The e- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31635-DB WA No. 669 of 2026 auction was conducted on an "As Is Where Is Basis", "As Is What Is Basis”, and a "Whatever There Is Basis" on 21.09.2023. 4. The appellant participated in the e-auction and deposited the Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] of `6,87,700/-, which was 10% of the reserve price of `68,77,000/- fixed for the subject property. The appellant furnished a bid for `69,27,000/-, which was above the reserve price. However, the said bid was not confirmed, and the website indicated that the auction had been cancelled. The appellant also received an email stating that auction had been cancelled "due to your requested bid amount not meeted bank secured loan amount". 5. The appellant contends that since the appellant was the sole bidder and his bid was above the reserve price, it was mandatory for the respondent ‒ bank to have confirmed the sale of the subject property in his favour. 6. The learned Single Judge found that no vested right had accrued in favour of the appellant for sale of the subject property and rejected the contention. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31635-DB WA No. 669 of 2026 7. It is trite law that any offer made at the time of an auction is merely an offer and does not constitute a contract until it is accepted. The contention that it was necessary that the appellant's offer be accepted by the respondent bank is insubstantial and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also referred to Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [the Rules] and submitted that a sale is required to be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in a bid or tender or quotation. The said contention is also unpersuasive. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules clarifies that the authorised officer shall confirm the sale in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price. However, it also clarified that the same would be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor. 9. In the present case, the secured creditor (respondent ‒ Bank) has declined to confirm the sale of the subject property in favour of the appellant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31635-DB WA No. 669 of 2026 10. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is unmerited and, accordingly, dismissed. 11. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12