- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 443 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S. BASAVARAJENDRA HOSPITAL A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DR. M BASAVARAJENDRA, OFFICE AT #785, SY NO.123/2 AND 123/1A MARIYALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571313 HOSPITAL REGISTRATION NO.CNR00037AAHP PH NO. 9449132040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMATH M.S, ADV. FOR SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C B. ,ADV.) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ADMIN OFFICE B H ROAD, Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 TUMKUR - 572103 KARNATAKA PH.0816-2257636/4021102-03 EMAIL. TGMC.HO@TGMCBANK.COM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER HAVING ITS BRANCH AT #344, NO.11/2, WARD NO. 36 DEVRAJ MOHALLA KRISHNA VILAS ROAD MYSORE - 570 001 PH. 0821-2448728 EMAIL.TGMC.MYSORE@TGMCBANK.COM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LOKESH K V AND LAW VIBES., ADV) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 06.01.2025 PASSED BY HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II BENGALURU IN S.A.NO.183 OF 2024 VIDE ANNX-A, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ON IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 06.01.2025 PASSED BY HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II BENGALURU IN S.A.NO. 183 OF 2024 VIDE ANNX-A.A- THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in interlocutory application No.1589/2024 in S.A.No.183/2024 by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.7738/ 2024. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2024, by directing the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, and also filed an application under Section 5 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act of 1963’) to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the securitization application. The said application was rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru vide order dated 06.01.2025. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II in interlocutory application No.1589/2024 passed in S.A.No.183/2024 filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had wrongly approached this Court in W.P.No.7738/2024. This Court disposed off the said writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 Tribunal along with an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Act of 1963. The Tribunal rejected the said application, and he submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. V. SHOBHA VS. M/S. ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION BANK COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS in W.P.NO.12800/2015, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench disposed off the writ petition vide order dated 16.09.2025. He submits that the Tribunal has rejected the application on hyper technical ground. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 is not applicable to the securitization application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7738/2024. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, disposed off the writ petition on 26.07.2024, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed the securitization application in S.A.No.183/2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and filed an interlocutory application No.1589/2024, showing that the petitioner could not file securitization application within time on the ground that the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the filing of application before the Tribunal within 45 days, and that the petitioner has approached the wrong forum. As per Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Act of 1963, if the petitioner has bonafidely approached the wrong forum, the period spent in the said proceeding shall has to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 excluded. Even after excluding there is only 19 days delay in filing the securitization application. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. V.SHOBHA (Supra) held in para Nos.20 to 23, which reads as under: 20. The Tribunal for the purposes of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is defined under Section 2(1)(i) which is as follows: “2(1)(i) “Debts Recovery Tribunal” means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.” 21. Insofar as the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 24 of the Act provides as follows: “24. Limitation.- The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal.” 22. Therefore, a reading of Section 24 of the Act, 1993 makes it beyond doubt that the Tribunal has the powers of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 not only in respect of an application filed under the Act of 1993 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 but also in respect of an application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have an over riding effect over all other laws which are inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the Act per se does not mandate that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 23. Therefore, it can be concluded that the DRT also has power to condone the delay by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1993. 8. From the perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, it has been held that the DRT has the power to condone the delay by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1993. The Tribunal without considering the said fact has proceeded to pass impugned order vide Annexure-A. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Shobha (Supra). The impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 in interlocutory application No.1589/2024 in S.A.No.183/2024 is liable to be quashed. 9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. That writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order vide Annexure-A dated 06.01.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1589/2024 in Securitisation Application No.183/2024 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal- II, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. iii. Interlocutory Application No.1589/2024 is allowed. iv. The Securitisation Application No.183/2024 is restored. v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru is directed to dispose off the securitisation application within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6330 WP No. 443 of 2025 vi. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB