- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9377 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M S ABDUL RASHEED S/O JANAB SHEIK MOHIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. MRS A B MAIMUNEESA W/O M S ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT SY.NO.88 AND 88/1 BLOCK NO.2, MAHADEVPET, CMC, MADIKERI, KODAGU - 571 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 AND: M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AMC COMPLEX, G T CIRCLE, MADIKERI - 571 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT S.N., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE AND PUBLIC NOTICE FOR E-AUCTION SALE DTD. 17.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-D AND E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “D) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to Quash the sale notice and Public Notice for E-Auction Sale dated 17.02.2024 issued by the Respondent vide Annexure-D and E E) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to give details of actual outstanding due F) Pass such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the they had availed a loan of Rs.35,00,000/- through two accounts from the respondent/Bank by mortgaging two properties. It is further contended that the petitioners were regular in payment of the EMIs; in spite of paying the EMIs regularly, the respondent/Bank declared loan accounts as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Thereafter, the respondent/Bank initiated the proceedings under Section 14 the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) and an order was passed by the Magistrate on 12.01.2023. 3. The petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘DRT’) by filing SA No.53/2023, which came - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP No.7689/2023, wherein, an interim order was granted subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit 20% of the outstanding amount i.e., 10% within one week and the remaining 10% within four weeks thereafter. 4. Pursuant to the said order the petitioners deposited 10% of the amount and thereafter, approached the respondent/Bank to deposit remaining 10% of the amount as per directions of the Hon’ble Court. However, the respondent/Bank refused to receive the said amount. On 29.01.2024, the petitioners submitted a representation that they are willing to close the account by 31.03.2024 and with the said observation, the writ petition came to be disposed of. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that even after payment of the said amount, the respondent/Bank issued the sale notice, which is assailed before this Court. It is submitted that by an interim order dated 27.03.2024, the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on or before 29.03.2024. In the event, if the petitioners would not deposit an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, the respondent/Bank is at liberty to take the sale to its logical conclusion. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 6. It is further submitted that the auction was conducted by the Bank and they have returned the 25% amount that is paid by the bidder. It is submitted that petitioners have paid the amount as directed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to settle the matter and in fact, they have approached the respondent/Bank seeking a One-Time Settlement (for short ‘OTS’). The learned counsel submits that a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners to pay the remaining amount. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that, the auction was conducted 25% of the amount paid by the bidder has been returned. It is submitted that the two prayers are sought in the writ petition, the first prayer is quashing the auction sale and since the amount has already been refunded to the bidder, nothing survives for adjudication insofar as the said prayer is concerned. The second prayer is seeking details of the outstanding amount which has already been complied with, as the Bank has furnished the necessary particulars. It is submitted that the Bank has taken possession of a portion of the property in the year 2024 and has been incurring lot of expenses towards maintenance and security of the property. If the petitioners want to pay the money under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 the OTS, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the respondent/Bank and therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The two prayers are sought before the Court. One prayer is with regard to quashing of the auction notice and the second one relates to furnishing details of the outstanding amount. Insofar as the first prayer is concerned, since the auction was not taken to its logical end and the amount paid by the bidder has already been returned, the said prayer has become infructuous. With regard to the second prayer, the Bank has already furnished the details of the outstanding dues to the petitioners and therefore, the said prayer has also become infructuous. 9. Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. As regards the submission of the petitioners that they are willing to settle the matter under OTS, the same is a matter between the petitioners and the respondent/Bank and if the Bank finds it acceptable. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the said remedy in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2154 WP No. 9377 of 2024 ORDER i. The reliefs that are sought by the petitioners have become infructuous. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent/Bank for OTS within a period of three weeks from today. During the said period of three weeks, the respondent/Bank shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. If, after the expiry of three weeks, the OTS does not fructify, the respondent/Bank is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. iii. All I.As pending in the writ petition stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT-SG