- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12948 WP No. 7085 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7085 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NIRMALA SIVASELVAM WIFE OF LATE. SIVASELVAM P., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SRI. THISHANTHAN P.S. SON OF LATE SRI. SIVASELVAM P., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 104, PREETHI ENCLAVE, S. BINGIPURA, HULIMANGLA POST, BENGALURU 560 105 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHANA C., ADVOCATE) AND: SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED) HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, TOWER 3A, DLF CORPORATE GREENS, SECTOR-74A, GURGAON, NARSINGHPUR, HARYANA-122 004. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12948 WP No. 7085 of 2026 REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-34, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR-II, NEW DELHI -110 024 LOCAL OFFICE AT NO. 139, 2ND FLOOR, GO HAPPY HYPER MARKET BUILDING, 8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU -560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / STATE HEAD MR. HARIPRASAD …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 IN CRIMINAL MISC NO. 1501/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12948 WP No. 7085 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe please to: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 in Criminal Mis. No.1501/2025 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or directions directing the respondent Bank to consider their representation dated 26.02.2026 vide Annexure-B thereby to allow the petitioners to regularize their loan A/c No.HHLBAN00530484, so that the petitioners can continue to pay the remaining loan amount as per the fresh EMI schedule of loan repayment. iii. Issue any other writ or pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The respondent is Sammaan Capital Limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.1, has held that the writ petition against a finance company is not 1 2025 INSC 117 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12948 WP No. 7085 of 2026 maintainable. In Para No.9 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines: “9. We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. (3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12948 WP No. 7085 of 2026 by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. (8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point.” 3. In the light of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, one of the petitioners is a student and if they are dispossessed during his examination time, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioners and some protection may be granted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12948 WP No. 7085 of 2026 5. When the writ petition itself is not maintainable before this Court, the question of granting interim protection would not arise. This practice is deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgments. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court and the petitioners are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29