- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 26226 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 26309 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) IN WP No. 26226/2025 BETWEEN: SHRI P SRIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE P SATHYANARAYAN MURTHY R/AT NO.GF-1 ‘ELEGANT EMBASSY’ 2ND MAIN, RAMA RAO LAYOUT, BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALURU 560085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK HUDDAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S JAYA SHANMUGA PROJECTS PVT LTD A COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED O/AT NO. 216/13, SURAJ TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, 27TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 SHRI PRASHANT RAJU@GOPINATH RAJU S/O GOPINATH CHENGAM RAJU 2. M/S CANARA BANK ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, BRANCH-1, 2ND FLOOR, C.O.BUILDING N0.86, SPENCER TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. PAWAN CHATURVEDI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DATED 30.08.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS DEFERRED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE / QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 12/08/2025 (E-AUCTION) PUBLISHED BY R2 AT ANNX-H. ii) DIRECT THE R2 TO RESTRAIN FROM TAKING ANY PRECIPITATIVE ACTION SUCH AS SALE / AUCTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL PENDING DISPOSAL OF SUIT IN OS NO. 5856/2018, AT ANNX-J. IN WP NO. 26309/2025 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE VEERABRAHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.G.10 (8/1), KEMPANNA STREET DODDAMAVAHALLLI, BANGALORE 560004 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK HUDDAR., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 AND: 1. M/S JAYA SHANMUGA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED 0/AT NO, 216/13 SURAJ TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, 27TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, L JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560011 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,SHRI PRASHANT RAJU @ GOPIANTH RAJU S/O GOPINATH CHENGAM RAJU 2. M/S CANARA BANK ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, BRANCH-I, 2ND FLOOR, C.O.BUILDING N0.86, SPENCER TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. PAWAN CHATURVEDI ....RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHA KARTHIK M REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 IN CP No.15880/25 SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE/QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 12.08.2025 (E-AUCTION) PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, AT ANNEXURE –H. 2. ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESTRAIN FROM TAKING ANY PRECIPITATIVE ACTION SUCH AS SALE/AUCTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL PENDING DISPOSAL OF SUIT IN OS NO. 5841/2018, AT ANNEXURE- J AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the sale auction notices dated 12.08.2025 published by respondent No.2 vide Annexure ‘H’, and also sought a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to restrain from taking any precipitative action, such as sale or auction regarding the schedule properties pending disposal of suit in O.S. Nos.5856 of 2018 and 5841 of 2018, respectively. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had agreed to purchase the properties in question under the agreement of sale dated 10.05.2013 wherein respondent No.1 agreed to sell the schedule property for a consideration of ₹45,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioners paid a sum of ₹40,00,000/- towards the advance sale consideration - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 amount and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. 3. It is contended that the petitioners filed a suit against respondent No.1 and another, in O.S. No.5856 of 2018 and 5841 of 2018 respectively, on the file of the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The said suits are still pending. It is contended that during the pendency of the said suits, respondent Bank cannot initiate any proceedings. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petitions. 4. The respondent-Bank has not filed a statement of objections. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.1 agreed to sell the schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 properties for a consideration of ₹45,00,000/- and the petitioners have paid the substantial consideration amount and respondent No.1 mortgaged the said properties in favour of respondent No.2 –bank and obtained the loan. 7. He submits that the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against respondent No.1 and another, in O.S. No.5856 of 2018 and O.S. No.5841 of 2018. He submits that in the said suits, the petitioners/plaintiffs arrayed respondent No.2 as a defendant. Respondent No.2 knowing fully well that the suits are pending for consideration, issued a sale notice. 8. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Viney Kumar Sharma v. The Improvement Trust and another, in SLP (Civil) No.24811 of 2025 disposed of on 16.01.2026. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- bank submits that admittedly the alleged agreements of sale are unregistered. He also submits that respondent No.1 obtained a loan from the Bank and has not paid the loan amount. Respondent No.2 initiated recovery proceedings against respondent No.1. He also submits that the petitioners have filed a securitization application in S.A. Nos.156 of 2024 and 157 of 2024 respectively, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru. The Tribunal rejected the applications vide order dated 25.06.2025. The petitioners have sought a similar relief in relief No.2 in the instant writ petitions. He submits that relief No.2 is hit by principles of res judicata. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 10. He submits that the petitioners are only agreement holder, and by virtue of the alleged agreements of sale, the petitioners do not get any interest in the property as per the proviso to Section 54 of the Transfer of property Act. He also submits that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned auction sale notice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 obtained a loan from respondent No.2-Bank and mortgaged the properties in question in favour of respondent No.2-bank. Respondent No.1 committed a default and respondent No.2 initiated the recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short, ‘the Act’). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 Respondent No.2 issued a notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, and also filed a petition in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.5021 of 2022 on the file of II Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru. The said petition came to be allowed. 13. It is contended that the suit properties have been sold, and a sale certificate was issued on 11.09.2025 and a copy of the sale certificate is produced. 14. The petitioners, being only, the alleged agreement holders, though have filed a suit in O.S. No.5856 of 2018 and 5841 of 2018, which are pending for consideration. The petitioners are yet to prove the Agreements of sale alleged to have been executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners. 15. Admittedly, the schedule properties were mortgaged in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. The petitioners, knowing fully well that respondent No.2 has created a charge over the properties in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8535 WP No. 26226 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26309 of 2025 question, agreed to purchase the said properties. The Tribunal in S.A. Nos.156 of 2024 and 157 of 2024 has considered all the contentions of the petitioners and passed the orders on 25.06.2025. 16. As the possession has been already taken, and now the petitioners have challenged the sale notices, and as the sale has already been concluded, in view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petitions. 17. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. 18. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14