Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 45990 (KAR)

SMT. MANJULA T R v. CANARA BANK

WP/1168/2026 · 2026-01-19

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2798 WP No. 1168 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA T R W/O L. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A OLD BOMMANAKATTE MAIN ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577204 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH N V., ADV.) AND: 1. CANARA BANK REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGISTERED OFFICED AT NO.112, JC ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 BRANCH OFFICE AT RIPPONPET BRANCH, BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SHIVAMOGGA-577426 2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA, 3. VASANTH, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2798 WP No. 1168 of 2026 4. PRASANNA, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA 5. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA 6. SHOBHA, W/O RAVI, D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 ARE R/A THUDIPETE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577228 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 15.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK THEREBY AUCTION THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ON 20.01.2026 AS RULE 8(6) AND 9 OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 AS PER ANNEXURE – A, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2798 WP No. 1168 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the sale notice issued under Rule 8(6) and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner without exhausting equal efficacious remedy has field this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, if so desired. 4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB