- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 10311 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S. KHWAJA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 104, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, T.J. ROAD, SEWRI, MUMBAI - 400 015. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. MOHD. SALEEM KHAN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.K. NANDA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRIDHVI ASSET RECONSTRUCTION AND SECURITIZATION COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D. NO.1-55, RAJA PRAASADAMU, 4TH FLOOR, WING-I, PLOT NO.6, 6A, 6B, MASJID BANDA ROAD, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 084. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MUMBAI, AND BRANCH OFFICE AT DEVCHAND HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, SHIVSAGAR ESTATE, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 030. 3. M/S. KEYGIEN GLOBAL LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 104, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, T.J. ROAD, SEWRI, MUMBAI - 400 015. 4. M/S. RADIUM GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 104, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, T.J. ROAD, SEWRI, MUMBAI - 400 015. 5. SHRI MOHAMMED SHOEB KHAN HAVING OFFICE AT 104, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, T.J. ROAD, SEWRI, MUMBAI - 400 015. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, SETTING ASIDE THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 PASSED BY THE DEBTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI IN M.A. (S.A) No. 81/2025 AND M.A. (S.A) No. 82 OF 2025 (ANNEXURE-A) ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 filed impugning the order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in Miscellaneous Appeal (SA) No. 81/2025 and Miscellaneous Appeal (SA) No.82/ 2025. These two appeals were filed by the respondent No.1- Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Limited. These appeals were directed against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer DRT-I at Karnataka, Bangalore, in IA No. 2625/2025 and IA No. 2971/2025 respectively in SA No.314/2015. The orders are dated 17.10.2025 and 07.11.2015 respectively. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 2. The petitioners have filed SA No. 314/2015 challenging the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. When SA was pending, the respondent-Company filed three applications in IA No. 2625/2025, IA No. 2626/2025 and IA No.2627/2025 for vacating the interim order of status quo granted by the DRT on 16.07.2015; to reopen the case to file the additional statement of objection along with documents and directions to the petitioners to produce the lease Deed/ agreement in order to demonstrate that the Lease Deed is in compliance with the provisions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, respectively. 3. The Presiding Officer, by the impugned orders dated 17.10.2025 and 07.11.2025 allowed IA Nos. 2626/2025 and 2627/2025 to resume the case, to file the additional statement of objection along with documents and direction to produce the Lease Deed/agreement. However, in IA No. 2625/2025, which was for vacating the interim order of status quo passed by the DRT on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 16.07.2015, the learned Presiding Officer had passed an order to continue the earlier status quo till the disposal of the SA with certain modifications. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2025 whereby the learned Presiding Officer, continued the earlier status quo order till the disposal of SA with certain modifications, an MA (SA) 81/2025 is filed. 4. The DRAT has noted the facts including the contents of the order passed by the Presiding Officer in paragraph 2.3 which would read as under: "xxx xxx xxx "The earlier order of status quo shall continue to operate till disposal of the SA with the following modifications and safeguards:- (i) The respondents No.1 to 4/applicants shall not create any new third party rights, transfer or encumber the secured asset in any manner. (ii) The existing lease arrangement if any. already created prior to this order and duly disclosed to the Tribunal may continue only for its original - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 limited term, and shall not be renewed; extended or modified without prior permission of this Tribunal. (iii) The petitioner/1st defendant shall not take any coercive steps including issuance of auction notice or confirmation of sale, till disposal of the SA." 5. During the continuity of the order of the aforesaid status quo, the petitioners had created Lease Agreement in favour of third party in violation of the order of status quo. The DRT did not only continue the order of status quo including the subsistence and continuation of the lease which was executed in violation of the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, but had also prevented the respondent- Company from taking any coercive steps including issuance of auction notice and confirmation of the sale till the disposal of the SA. 6. The Appellate Tribunal has taken note of the facts and the submissions of the parties in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 has held as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 "6. From the perusal of the records, submissions made by Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, and orders impugned in these Appeals, it can be gathered that certain facts are undisputed. The Respondents filed SA 314/2015 for the relief afore mentioned. When the Securitisation Application was pending, status quo was ordered to be maintained by both the parties as per order passed by Learned Presiding Officer on 16.07.2015. Thereafter, it is informed that the status quo order was extended from time to time, on the representation made by Respondents that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, passed order for stay of further proceedings in the Securitisation Application. However, after assignment of loan in favour of Appellant, Appellant verified and found that there was no Writ Petition filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and no stay whatsoever was granted. In the said background, the aforesaid Applications were filed. Of these Applications filed, two were allowed. 7. Admittedly, during the pendency of the SARFAESI Application, especially, when status quo was in force, the Respondents created tenancy in favour of a third party M/s Sundaram Toyota. The case of the Respondents is that Respondents are entitled to lease the property for the period not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 exceeding three years under Section 65 A of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned Presiding Officer recorded that "The Securitisation Application is ripe for final disposal and can be decided within the short period. Permitting the Petitioner to issue any auction sale notice at this stage would likely to lead multiplicity of litigation, defeating the object of early disposal. The Tribunal notes that the Applicants have leased the property to a third party for a limited period, which fact was disclosed on record While such existing arrangement need not be disturbed immediately, no new or extended tenancy can be allowed so as to frustrate the Respondent's right." Recording thus, he passed the order which was extracted earlier. In effect, Learned Presiding Officer approved the lease created in favour of third party by the Respondents, when the Securitisation Application is pending, especially, when lease agreement was executed and when status quo order was in force against both the parties. Not only that, Learned Presiding Officer prevented the Appellant from taking coercive steps including issuance of auction notice or confirmation of sale, till disposal of the SA. This Tribunal is of the view that the order passed by Learned Presiding officer is beyond the scope of the Applications filed and the prayer sought for. Every measure under SARFASI Act is an independent measure giving independent cause of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 action. In an Application filed vacating status quo order, direction issued to the Appellant not to take any coercive steps including issuance of auction notice or confirmation of sale, is beyond the scope of the Applications filed and the prayers in the Securitisation Application and against all canons of judicial propriety. 8. There is no denial of the fact that the lease agreement in favour of M/s. Sundaram Toyota had come into existence during the pendency of this Securitisation Application, especially, when status quo order was in force, more particularly, after issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002." 7. Considering the facts as noted by the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the petitioners who in violation of the order passed by the Tribunal for maintaining status quo executed the lease deed and also misled the Tribunal by saying that there was an order of status quo passed by the High Court in a writ petition, when no such Writ Petition was filed and no such order existed, we are of the view that they are not entitled - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19265-DB WP No. 10311 of 2026 for any indulgence by this Court. Therefore, we dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. However, we direct the DRT to proceed with the hearing of the matter and conclude the same, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months. 9. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be advanced before the DRT. 10. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3