- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31599 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI N.S.RAJESH ACHARYA AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE MR N.SHIVARAYA ACHARYA, RESIDING AT NO.23-9-610, KAIKAMBA NILAYA, MONKEY STAND NEW ROAD, MANGALADEVI PANDESHWAR 4, MANGALURU-575001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUMA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, GROUND FLOOR, PARADIGM PLAZA, PANDESHWAR ROAD, NEAR A B SHETTY CIRCLE, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, THOKKOTU MANGALURU BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, SHALOM HEIGHTS APARTMENT, BHAT NAGAR, THOKKOTU, MANGALURU-575020. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 NO.239, VIDHANA BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND CANCEL THE E-AUCTION SALE DATED 30.01.2025 (ANNEXURE- B) AND TO QUASH THE SALE CERTIFICATE (ANNEXURE-G) DATED 20.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF NON AGRICULTURAL IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED IN JEPPINAMOGORU VILLAGE OF MANGALORE TALUK WITHIN SUB DISTRICT REGISTRATION OF MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT AND COMPRISED IN R.S NO. 92-2A3 (SHOWN AS 92-2A3P55 IN RTC) CONVERTED TO THE EXTENT OF 10 CENTS TOGETHER WITH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BEARING D.NO. 4-161/1(1), 4-161/1(2) AND 4- 160/1 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 CAV ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “PRAYER The honourable court may be pleased to I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and cancel the e-auction sale dated 30-1-2025 (Anx.B) and to quash the sale certificate (Anx. G) dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in respect of non agricultural immovable property situated in Jeppinamogoru Village of Mangalore Taluk within Sub District registration of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District and comprised in R.S No. 92- 2A3 [Shown as 92-2A3P55 in RTC] converted to the extent of 10 cents together with residential building bearing D.No.4-161/1(1), 4-161/1(2) & 4-160/1. II. refund the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner at 18% p.a. from the date of auction till payment III. Direct the Respondents to reimburse/pay the medical expenses of $10,00,000/- incurred by the petitioner for the treatment of his wife; IV. Further direct the respondent to pay the litigation costs borne by the petitioner in this regard; V. grant costs and other reliefs as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.01.2025, the respondent/Bank made a publication in the newspaper regarding E-auction of non agricultural immovable property situated in Jeppinamogoru Village of Mangalore Taluk within Sub District registration of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The petitioner had participated in the auction. On - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 30.01.2025, the Bank had confirmed the sale of the property and accepted bid of Rs.65,65,000/-. Immediately, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. On 31.01.2025, the Bank had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bank had not given possession of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner was kept in a position of uncertainty wherein he was made liable to repay the bank loan, but was denied any legal title, possession or ownership rights to the property concerned. Despite complying with the financial obligations, the respondent/bank had failed and neglected to hand over the physical possession of the said property to the petitioner. Hence, a legal notice was issued to the respondent/Bank on 01.05.2025. It is stated that the wife of the petitioner being shocked of the developments suffered a stroke on 27.05.2025 and was admitted in Father Muller Medical College Hospital from 27.05.2025 to 12.06.2025. It is stated that the petitioner has paid EMI of an amount of Rs.34,713/- for the months of February and March as well as Rs.5,191/- in April, apart from the deposit of Rs.26,00,000/-. It is stated that the respondents have sent a letter to the petitioner on 29.09.2025 along with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 the sale certificate dated 20.03.2025. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent/Bank, the petitioner has come before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conducting the auction, it is the duty of the respondents to give the physical possession of the property to the petitioner. It is the contention that the so-called auction conducted by the Bank was wholly a sham and a fraudulent transaction in gross violation of the mandatory provisions under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that the petitioner was not given the possession and he has lost his money and he is made to pay the EMIs. It is stated that the Apex Court and several High Courts have consistently held that auction sale of secured assets can be cancelled if there is violation of the principles of natural justice and if the auction purchaser is not in default. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on an order passed by the Apex Court in case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Corporation Bank and Others arising out of Civil Appeal No.11269/2016 dated 25.09.2025. She had relied on paragraph No.19 which reads as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 “19. It is argued that the Bank has committed multiple illegalities, from the stage of application for grant of loan till sale of land. It is urged that the Bank has disbursed the loan to the club without intimating the DDA and ought to have appreciated that DDA had granted, no objection only, to apply for a loan to the extent of 35 lakhs only. However, the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.60 lakhs. It is contended that the Bank had the knowledge that the property was not a freehold property and DDA is entitled for statutory dues. It is further contended that the sale is therefore liable to be set aside and the subject plot be restored to the DDA permitting it to claim its statutory dues from the Bank.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of M/s.Paramount Constructions Company Vs. The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank and Others arising out of WP.No.33034/2019 dated 28.07.2023, wherein the Apex Court had quashed the sale certificate issued by the Bank. She had relied on the following paragraphs: “18. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts what would unmistakably emerge is that an innocent auction purchaser is made to bear the brunt of unnecessary litigation all for the acts of the Bank in not delivering a property which was free from all encumbrances. If the Bank has done due diligence at the time of grant of loan in the year 2010 to the Company, the situation now would not have arisen. The Bank is now seeking to wash off its hands by contending that it is not responsible for any problem that would crop up after the sale, as the e-auction notice clearly indicated that the property is being sold “as is where is basis, as is what is basis”. That would not mean that an auction purchaser could be put in possession of the property which is not free from encumbrance. ‘As is where is’ cannot mean that the property did not have title itself for it to be sold in a public auction. The responsibility - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 undoubtedly rests on the part of the Bank to have not conducted any due diligence either while granting the finance or while putting the property to sale or even at a time when the petitioner was delivered documents and possession of the property. It appears, all that the Bank wanted was to redeem its charge over the property and somehow finds its way in getting back the amount. Several litigations have emerged after the sale of the property to the petitioner and the petitioner having invested huge amount in 2014 is yet to reap the benefits of the said sale all for the reason that litigations galore. Therefore, it is for the Bank now to refund the amount as is claimed by the petitioner.” 19. *** *** *** *** “The Apex Court in the case of UNITECH, formulates a specific issue of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and answers it by following ABL International and holding that in certain circumstances, even on a money claim, the writ would be maintainable, if the action of the State smacks arbitrariness. The case at hand would form a classic illustration for entertainment of a writ petition allowing a money claim, as the Bank, a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has conducted itself which would not behove its status. Therefore, even though a claim is made for money, I deem it appropriate to entertain the writ petition and grant the prayer that is sought for by the petitioner, as there is no determination necessary of any amount payable, as the petitioner is an auction purchaser and has paid certain amount to the Bank and is seeking refund of the said amount in the same manner a Bank would charge interest on borrowals.” 6. Based on these judgments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has to be allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3/Bank has filed the objections wherein it is stated that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, he can approach the DRT and he cannot come before this Court. It is also submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner necessitates leading evidence on the basis of documents and adjudication of the same by the DRT and these disputed questions cannot be decided by this Court by exercising the writ jurisdiction. It is stated that property originally belonged to one Ms. Philomena D’Souza and she had availed the loan for purchasing a brand new fishing boat purchased out of bank’s finance and collateral security of mortgage of already constructed residential houses bearing door Nos.4-161/1(1), 4-161/1(2), 4-160/1 in Sy.No.92- 2A31A(P), Jeppinamogru Village, Mangaluru Taluk, belonging to one Urban D’souza, husband of the borrower. It is stated that the Mangalore City Corporation has also issued occupancy certificate on 26.09.2015 in respect of the building. 8. The mortgagor has been paying municipal taxes in respect of the auctioned property. Upon thorough due - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 diligence, the mortgage was created. When the loan account was classified as NPA, the respondent/Bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the property was put to auction. It is stated that the Bank put the property to auction eight times, but the auction failed each time for want of bidders. Pursuant to an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in Criminal Miscellaneous case No.357/2023 dated 30.10.2023, the Bank obtained physical possession of the property through Court Commissioner on 19.02.2024. It is stated that the petitioner who is an empanelled gold appraiser with the respondent/Bank had evinced interest to participate in the e-auction and participated in the auction and deposited an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as EMD and was declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.65,65,000/- and upon payment of balance 15% to make it to 25% of the bid amount, the sale was confirmed in his favour. 9. The petitioner had applied for a housing loan to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- with the Bank and the Bank had obtained a fresh valuation report and granted the loan. The respondent/Bank issued sale certificate on 20.03.2025 in favour - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 of the petitioner and was ready to hand over the physical possession of the auctioned property to the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to receive the sale certificate and instead sought refund of the sale consideration. The respondent/Bank was therefore constrained to send reminders to the petitioner to come and collect the sale certificate and copies of the correspondence dated 21.06.2025 and 08.07.2025. Since the petitioner did not respond to the same, the respondent/Bank was constrained to forward the sale certificate by way of registered post. It is stated that sale notice clearly mentions that the auctioned property is sold in an “as is where is basis”, “as is what is”, as is what is and whatever there is” condition and it is the sole responsibility of the bidders to inspect and satisfy themselves about the secured assets and specification before submitting the bid and on participation by any person, it shall be deemed that the bidders have fully satisfied themselves as to the property/assets and claims/dues affecting the property under sale in all aspects. It is stated that it is not open for the petitioner to raise all these issues. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Bank has an obligation to disclose “known” encumbrances, in respect of undisclosed encumbrances like statutory dues, building violations, etc. the respondent/Bank cannot undertake responsibility for the same and cannot be held liable for the same. It is also submitted that Rule 8(7) mandates disclosure of the description of the immovable property to be sold including details of encumbrances known to secured creditors. It is submitted that this Rule is to be interpreted bearing in mind the terms and conditions of the subject auction notice, that the petitioner has irrevocably bound himself to. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought before this Court. 11. In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the photographs before this Court and submits that half of the building is situated outside the property and the petitioner is not in a position to use the same. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 12. Learned counsel for the respondents had relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of N.Suresh Vs. The Indian Bank1. She had relied on paragraph No.38: “38. In the instant case, in the upshot of discussions, it is latently and patently clear that it is the Petitioner's duty as an intending purchaser to satisfy himself as to the encumbrance, cloud or shroud surrounding the property in question before taking part in the Auction Bid conducted by the Respondent/Bank on 19.10.2012. It is not open to the Petitioner, after taking part in the Auction Bid held on 19.10.2012 and also after remitting an Earnest Money of Rs.4,70,000/-, to come out with a plea that there are encumbrances over the property which were not notified in the Auction Notice. On the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the Bank has clearly, in Clause 2 of the Terms and Conditions of the Auction Notice, spelt out its stand that the property brought in Auction Sale through Notice dated 19.10.2012 shall be transferred/conveyed on "as is where is" basis and "as is what is" condition by means of a sale certificate in the name of the Purchaser only. Only with the open eyes, the Petitioner has taken part in the Auction Bid, held on 19.10.2012. After taking part in the Auction held on 19.10.2012, we are of the considered view that, it is not open to the Petitioner to question the impugned order dated 11.02.2013 of the Respondent/Bank in forfeiting 25% of the bid amount paid by him on 21.11.2012. As such, we unhesitatingly held that the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner is not maintainable, in law. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails.” “39. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. We make it clear that the dismissal of the present Writ Petition will not preclude the Petitioner to work out his remedy against the Respondent/Bank as per prevailing law for the time being in force, before the competent forum, if he so desires/advised in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, in which event, the appropriate forum is to consider the claim of the Petitioner in a dispassionate manner, untrammeled by 1 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1091 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 any the observations/discussions made by this Court in this Writ Petition. No costs.” 13. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in case of Jayshree Kailash Wani Vs. Official Liquidator2. She had relied on paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24 which reads as follows: “20. Apparently, we find that the e-auction notice itself provided for an opportunity to the appellant to make an inspection of the site in question on 2.1.2023 and 3.1.2023 i.e. much before the date of the submission of the earnest money i.e. 9.1.2023 and the date of the bid which was on 10.1.2023. The terms and the conditions of the e-auction itself contained a stipulation that the auction was “AS IS WHERE IS AND WHATEVER THERE IS BASIS” and it would be deemed that by submitting the bid request the bidder has made a complete and careful examination of the property and has satisfied himself/itself of all the relevant and material information in relation to the property.” 21. Pertinently, the appellant for the reasons best known to him had not made physical inspection of the property in question before auction, however, it has come on record that for the very first time inspection was 9 conducted by the appellant on 18.11.2023 as apparent from para 6 of the application preferred seeking extension of time to make deposit of the bid amount. 22. Certainly, for the inaction or lethargy on the part of the appellant, the respondent cannot be held to be responsible. Further more, once the terms and the conditions as set forth in the e-auction notice itself recites that the auction “AS IS WHERE IS AND WHATEVER THERE IS BASIS” then there is no question of non disclosure of the vital fact. Not only this, it is on the instance of the appellant itself that the auction stood settled in his favour by the Company Judge on 2 2024: AHC: 172092-DB - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 26.7.2023 and by order dated 1.12.2023 whereby, on the request of the appellant time was extended for a period of one month to make the entire payments of the bid amount. Once the said orders have been passed on the request and the undertaking of the appellant and have attained finality then it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to question the auction. 24. So far as the reliance placed upon the judgements in Llovegeet Dhuria (Supra), S.K. Bakshi (Supra) and M/s Kalyani (India) Private Limited (Supra) are concerned, they are not applicable in the facts of the 11 case as the issue involved in those cases was relatable to a pending litigation at the instance of the secured creditor which was not disclosed in the auction notice. However, in the present case, there is no dispute to the ownership and the title of the land in question.” 14. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Rangiah Chettiar and Kempammal Trust Vs. Authorised Officer & Asst. General Manager, Punjab National Bank3. She had relied on 3, 4, 5 which reads thus: “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the sale certificate executed by the respondent Bank under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which, inter alia, also contains a Clause that the sale of the property was made on 'as is where is' and 'as is what is' basis, on the acceptance of the successful bidder that they will satisfy encumbrances, if any, on the said property, without recourse to the Bank. The said sale was duly confirmed by both parties by execution of the sale certificate and also counter-signed by the petitioner Trust.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Rule 8(7) of the Security Interest 3 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 15962 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as well as Rules 9(9) and 10 thereof. The said Rules envisage notice of sale should disclose description of the immovable property to be sold, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor. The Authorised Officer under Rule 9(9) of the said Rules has to deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7). Sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 states that the certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that firstly the sale of the property in question was made by the respondent Bank on 'as is where is' and 'as is what is' basis and, therefore, it enjoins upon the auction purchaser a duty to investigate into the matter about the encumbrance on the said property, if any, on the principle of caveat emptor or buyer be aware. Secondly, even if there is an encumbrance on the said property, the buyer, the present petitioner herein, apparently agreed to clear that encumbrance without recourse to the respondent Bank. Therefore, in view of the said agreement between the parties, the petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the said contract by way of the present writ petition and seek refund of the amount. The writ petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed as such.” 15. She had relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State of UP and others arising out of WRIT – C No.35952/2025 dated 15.10.2025. She relied on paragraph Nos.8, 12 and 14 which reads thus: “8. After hearing learned counsels for parties and going through record, the following issues arise for the consideration by this Court: (i) Whether the respondent - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 Bank is liable for the society dues, which got discovered by the purchaser after execution of sale transaction in the light of the fact that e-auction notice had clear mention that it is on "as is where is", "as is what is and "whatever there is" basis? (ii) Whether after purchasing the property on "as is where is", "as is what is and "whatever there is" basis, and realizing non- compliance of the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and and Maintenance) Act, 2010, is it open for the petitioner to pray for directions against respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 12. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the case, we find that petitioner does not dispute this fact that he had participated in proceedings of E- Auction dated 27.12.2023 with the knowledge of the fact that the property in question was available on "as is where is", "as is what is and "whatever there is" basis. Hence, the facts of the case fall within the parameters of law laid down in the judgements cited above. In the light of settled principles as discussed in above judgements, once a person participates in any auction while having knowledge that the property is being e-auctioned having the condition "as is where is", "as is what is and "whatever there is" the duty is upon the prospective bidder, who is the purchaser in facts of the case, to exercise complete caution in checking dues and liabilities. Accordingly, first issue is decided against the petitioner and the prayer against respondents is rejected. 14. The second issue must also be decided against the petitioner as the grievance regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 was raised only after the petitioner had taken possession of the property, which was well after the execution of the sale. The terms and conditions of the sale were known to the petitioner at the time of participation in the E-auction and consequent purchase and he had option of not participating if the conditions were not acceptable and, therefore, the respondent Bank has rightly responded that it bears no liability where the purchaser has failed to exercise due diligence in accordance with the conditions specified in the e-auction notice.” - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 16. Learned counsel had relied on another judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Jai Kumar Bansal arising out of RFA(COMM) 50/2023 dated 20.02.2026. She relied on paragraph Nos.12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 which reads thus: “12. The jurisprudence on this point, notably the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Rekha Sahu v. UCO Bank1, clarifies that although a SARFAESI sale is on an “as is” basis, the authorized officer is not absolved of the duty to disclose known encumbrances. The Court held that the immunity provided by “as is where is” terms cannot be used to shield the non- disclosure of material facts that are within the Bank's knowledge. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd.2 and more recently in Delhi Development Authority v. Corporation Bank & Ors3 has emphasized that a secured creditor must act with transparency. In the Delhi Development Authority case, the Supreme Court held that the non-disclosure of the DDA‟s „unearned increase‟ charge - a statutory claim, violated the requirement to inform bidders of material encumbrances, leading to the quashing of the auction. 15. This was not a vague "as is" clause but a specific contractual allocation of risk regarding statutory dues. This condition was further reinforced in the Bank‟s communication dated 14.12.2018 (Letter of Acceptance), where Clause 8 explicitly advised the Respondent that any charges or taxes pending on the property were to be borne by him. The Respondent, having participated in a high-stakes auction with a bid of over ₹6.07 Crores is presumed to be a sophisticated commercial entity. Such a purchaser is expected to exercise due diligence commensurate with the value of the transaction. 16. Unlike the facts in Mandava Krishna Chaitanya v. UCO Bank5, where the bank was found to have made "no exercise whatsoever to verify encumbrances," the Appellant Bank in this case acted based on its records, - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 representing that there were no "known" encumbrances. The Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to suggest that the Bank had actual knowledge of the specific UPSIDA dues and deliberately suppressed them. 18. The principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) finds strong application here. The dues claimed by UPSIDA (a public authority) were matters of public record and pertained to the leasehold nature of the property. A simple inquiry with UPSIDA, as the lessor, would have revealed the status of the dues. By signing the acceptance and the sale certificate, the Respondent entered a binding contract to assume all "unknown" liabilities. As held in Royal Star Trading Co. v. IFCI Ltd.6, an auction purchaser cannot renege on a confirmed bid or seek modifications to the price (by way of reimbursement of dues) simply because of a subsequent discovery of liabilities that they had already contractually agreed to bear. 19. The Commercial Court failed to appreciate that the “as is” clause in the present case was supplemented by a specific warning regarding statutory dues. The court below erroneously applied the standard of an absolute warranty of title, which does not exist in SARFAESI auctions unless specifically promised. In the absence of fraud or active misrepresentation, neither of which has been proved by the Respondent, the contractual terms must be enforced.” 17. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Bank has conducted the auction as per the procedure and no interference is called for. 18. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. According to the petitioner, the possession of property was not given to the petitioner. According to the respondent/Bank, they have given the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 possession to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed photographs before this Court stating that the possession cannot be taken as half of the building is situated outside the boundaries mentioned in the document. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that they have taken possession of the property and they have given possession to petitioner and whatever the known encumbrances have been disclosed to them. It is submitted that the Bank cannot disclose the encumbrances which are not in their knowledge. It is the case of the Bank that the occupancy certificate, the mutation, the tax documents, all were looked into by the Bank before creating a mortgage in respect to the property. In the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, this Court is of the view that all these aspects require evidence and this Court cannot go into all these issues in a writ petition. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, these disputed questions of facts can only be decided by the DRT. The judgments that are relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the case for the reason that this Court cannot decide the disputed questions of facts. Hence, this Court is passing the following: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23885 WP No. 31599 of 2025 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii. Till such time, the respondent/Bank shall not take any coercive steps. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2