- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13456 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.T.B.CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF LATE T.S.BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, 4TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT FURTHER EXTENSION, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 086 2. SMT.ANITHA H.B., WIFE OF T.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, 4TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT FURTHER EXTENSION, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 086. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY IDFC BANK LIMITED) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KRM TOWNERS, 7TH FLOOR, NO. 1 HARRINGOT ROAD, CHELPET, CHENNAI-600 031 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT KCA ENCLAVE, 3RD FLOOR, POLICE STATION ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS QUASH AN IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2025, PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 10101/2024, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXII C.J.M., BENGALURU, WHEREIN SRI.UMESH.C, ADVOCATE, KAR NO.2250/2009 IS APPOINTED AS COURT COMMISSIONER TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND HAND OVER THE SAME TO THE RESPONDENTS. FURTHER POLICE INSPECTOR OF MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT POLICE STATION IS DIRECTED TO EXTEND HELP/ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT COMMISSIONER OF THE SECURED CREDITOR/PETITIONER IN TAKING POSSESSION OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case and grant the following relief(s):- i.To issue a writ of certiorari to quash an impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.10101/2024 on the file of Hon’ble XXXII CJM, Bengaluru, wherein Sri. Umesh. C, Advocate, KAR No.2250/2009 is appointed as Court Commissioner to take physical possession of the Schedule Property and hand over the same to the Respondents. Further Police Inspector of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station is directed to extend help/assistance to the Court Commissioner of the Secured Creditor/Petitioner in taking possession of the secured property, which is produced and marked as Annexure-E as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, without application of mind, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, in the nature of order/direction directing the respondents/bank to consider the dase of the petitioners for one time settlement (OTS) after weighing off the interest and penal interest, in the interest of justice and equity. iii. To grant, any such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order on 29.04.2025 which reads thus: “Issue emergent notice to the respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 There shall be an interim order of stay, as prayed for, till the next date of hearing, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.50/- Lakhs of the outstanding amount, within 6 weeks from today, in the following manner: (i) The petitioners shall deposit Rs.25/- lakhs within three weeks from today; (ii) Remainder of Rs.25/- lakhs shall be paid within another three weeks, thereafter; and (iii) Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even of the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself. (iv) It is made clear that this order would not mean that the borrowers stop paying the EMI to the Bank. Future EMIs shall continue to be paid, failing which, the interim order now granted would get automatically vacated. The learned counsel for the respondent - bank submits that the moment the amount would be paid, the possession would be redelivered. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of the property has been taken over by the bank. The respondent - bank shall redeliver the possession of the property, the moment the petitioners pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the bank and the possession shall be retained by the petitioners, subject to the condition that the petitioners would pay another Rs.25,00,000/-, within three weeks after the payment of the first Rs.25,00,000/-. List the matter on 05.06.2025.” 3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Court, the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 bank has re-delivered the possession of the property. Today, when the matter came up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed an interim order on 19.11.2025. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the interim order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, they have already paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners have not complied with the interim order and when the bank had sought for the possession of the property, at that time they have filed an affidavit stating about the difficulties of the petitioners and why they could not pay the amount. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank submits that the interim order of this Court is to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- i.e., Rs.25,00,000/- immediately and thereafter, the possession has to be re-delivered and remaining amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to be paid within three weeks from thereon. It is submitted that this order is passed on 29.04.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 and the petitioners after re-deliver of the property, have failed to pay the amount and approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. According to the petitioners, petitioner had paid the money and remaining amount as per the order passed in the writ petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the S.A. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, he do not have specific instructions about the payment made by the petitioners as per the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Be that as it may, when a litigant approaches the Court seeking a particular relief and as per the prayer, when an interim order is granted by this Court and the property is restored to the petitioner on condition, petitioner without fully complying with the conditions, without withdrawing the instant writ petition had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. This Court cannot appreciate the conduct of the petitioner and cannot permit the petitioner to abuse the process of Court. This is nothing but forum shopping. In the matters arising out of SARFAESI proceedings, now it has become a procedure that, though there is an alternative - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 remedy, party will approach the High Court and after an interim order is granted by the court, without complying with it or partly complying with it, again the party will file a SA before Debt Recovery Tribunal. The litigant is not making any effort to even withdraw the writ petition and then approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. When the matter comes up for hearing, it is submitted before the Court that as they have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, they may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. The High Court is not a stop-gap arrangement between the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the petitioners. The Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be abused in this manner and this Court cannot be a mute spectator to this kind of abuse. The Courts have repeatedly held that a litigant cannot take advantage of one forum and then abandon it after securing benefit. Forum shopping is nothing but pure abuse of process of law. Courts exist for the purpose of dispensation of justice and not to facilitate strategies designed to obtain orders of this nature. Permitting such conduct would erode the sanctity of judicial orders and encourage the litigants to treat the judicial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10102 WP No. 13456 of 2025 process as medium of convenience. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Service Authority. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2