- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490262022 NC: 2026:KHC:51864 WP No. 21358 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 21358 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR SALIA K A SON OF LATE MR. AHMED, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLAKERI VILLAGE, NAPOKLU POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU - 571 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANEEF M H.,ADVOCATE) AND: KODAGU DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED MAJOR, MUTTANNA CIRCLE, MADIKERI TOWN, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU - 571 201. REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SYED IMRAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.09.2022 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI IN PETITION NO.DCB/ETC/04/2021-22 AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490262022 NC: 2026:KHC:51864 WP No. 21358 of 2022 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14(1) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The caption petition is by the borrower questioning the order dated 13.09.2022 passed under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). 2. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that the writ courts should not grant any indulgence to a default borrower, when actions are contemplated by the secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, this Court, accepting the submission made by the counsel on record, has granted some indulgence, and the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490262022 NC: 2026:KHC:51864 WP No. 21358 of 2022 proceedings are stalled vide order dated 31.10.2022, subject to deposit of 10% of the amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- society submits that the recovery proceedings are stalled despite deposit of 10% of the amount. This court is of the view that the petitioner, having successfully obtained some protection by way of interim measure, was required to make further deposits and also attempt to seek revival of his loan. Merely because this Court has granted interim order, the right to recover the money cannot be stalled indefinitely. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK