- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.101267 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. DODDAMANI PANDURANGA SETTY S/O. LATE. DODDAMANI RAMACHANDRAPPA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION. BUSINESS, R/O. 661, SR NAGAR, 17TH WARD, CHAPRADAHALLI AREA, HOSAPETE-583201, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NABISAB RAJAMAHAMAD BADIGER, ADVOCATE AND SMT. JAYASHREE B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (PERTAINING TO LOAN RECOVERY OF SREE RAMAKRISHNA LODGE) AND THE BRANCH MANAGER, MANVI PATTANA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITA, SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, (MOORANGADI CIRCLE) GANDHI CHOWK AREA, HOSAPETE-583201. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANVI PATTANA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITA, APSARA TALKIES COMPLEX, SINDHANOOR ROAD, MANVI-584123, RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE DATED 04.02.2026 (ANNEXURE-A1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK PROPOSING SALE OF THE SECURED ASSET BY PRIVATE TREATY; B) DECLARE THAT THE ACTIONS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO THE DEFECTIVE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 04.06.2019 (ANNEXURES B & B1), THE SUBSEQUENT POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS, AND THE IMPUGNED SALE PROCESS ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002, AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; C) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT A FRESH VALUATION OF THE SECURED ASSET THROUGH AN APPROVED VALUER IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8(5) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 AND THEREAFTER PROCEED STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, IF SO ADVISED; D) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE AND PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE SECURED ASSET, INCLUDING MOVABLE PROPERTIES, IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF TAKING POSSESSION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, COMPENSATE THE PETITIONERS FOR THE LOSS AND DETERIORATION CAUSED DUE TO FAILURE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE PROPERTY AFTER TAKING POSSESSION; E) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO CREATE ANY THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SECURED ASSET PENDING FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION; (F) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INDEMNIFY AND COMPENSATE THE PETITIONERS FOR ALL LOSSES, DETERIORATION, DEPRECIATION AND DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE SECURED ASSET, INCLUDING MOVABLE PROPERTIES, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AFTER TAKING PHYSICAL POSSESSION, IN VIOLATION OF STATUTORY DUTIES, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AND COSTS, AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT; (G) PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ in the nature Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned Sale Notice dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure-A1) issued by the Respondent Bank proposing sale of the Secured Asset by private treaty; b) declare that the actions initiated by the Respondents pursuant to the defective demand notices dated 04.06.2019 (Annexures B & B1), the subsequent possession proceedings, and the impugned sale process are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India; c) direct the Respondents to conduct a fresh valuation of the Secured Asset through an approved valuer in accordance with Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and thereafter proceed strictly in compliance with statutory requirements, if so advised; d) direct the Respondents to restore and properly maintain the secured Asset, including movable properties, in the condition in which it stood at the time of taking possession, or in the alternative, compensate the Petitioners for the loss and deterioration caused due to failure to preserve and protect the property after taking possession; e) Direct the Respondents not to create any third-party rights in respect of the Secured Asset pending final disposal of the present Writ petition; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 (f) Direct the Respondents to indemnify and compensate the Petitioners for all losses, deterioration, depreciation and damage caused to the Secured Asset, including movable properties, on account of their failure to properly preserve, protect and maintain the property after taking physical possession, in violation of statutory duties, together with interest thereon and costs, as may be determined by this Hon’ble Court; (g) Pass such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had availed two loans from the respondent/Bank. As the petitioner could not repay the loan amount, the accounts of the petitioner was declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and notices were served under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’). Thereafter, on 29.08.2019, possession notice was issued under Section 13(4) of the Act and then the Bank submitted applications dated 31.12.2019 to the District Magistrate Ballari invoking Section 14 of the Act and the Magistrate has passed an order. It is the case of the petitioner that with an inordinate delay, the order under Section 14 of the Act was passed and the respondents failed to preserve and maintain the property in the proper condition. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 the case of the petitioner that after four years, the possession was taken. The respondent conducted multiple failed auctions from 01.06.2022, 28.09.2022, 31.10.2022, 12.12.2022, 17.10.2023, 28.12.2023, 05.03.2024, 03.07.2024, 05.01.2026 and 03.02.2026. Due to lapse of the same, the same could not be conducted. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the sale notice dated 04.02.2026 is issued to conduct the sale on 19.02.2026 at Rs.3,68,46,000/- to an unnamed proposed purchaser, providing only 15 days notice without public invitation for offers, fresh valuation or curing prior defects. According to them, the notice violates Rules 8(5), 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’) as no 30 days time is granted and the same needs to be set aside. Further, it is submitted that the value of the property is not correctly maintained, which would cause loss to the borrower. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued in similar line that 30 days notice is mandatory and if the 30 days notice is not given, it is contrary to the provisions of the Rules - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 and the same needs to be set aside. Even with regard to the market value fixed for the property is also not correct and on that count also this Court needs to interfere with the same. 5. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. The two contentions that are raised before this Court are with regard to the 30 days notice and the market value of the property. Firstly, when the SARFAESI proceedings are initiated in the year 2019 itself and the petitioner, who has received the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, was aware of the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act. Though he has a remedy to go before the DRT, however, he has not availed the said remedy before the DRT. 6. The proceedings were initiated by the Bank in the year 2019 and at any point of time the borrower has not approached the DRT and he has kept quiet. The value of the property and other things, the disputed questions of facts, cannot be decided while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, several times the auction notices were issued but sale could not be concluded for want of bidders. In these circumstances, on any of these - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2410 WP No. 101267 of 2026 aspects, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, he is at liberty to pursue the same. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. (ii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29