Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8398 (KAR)

SMT. BOBBY R C v. M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

WP/11970/2026 · 2026-04-29

Lalitha Kanneganti

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23941 WP No. 11970 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11970 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. BOBBY R C W/O SRI. PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 308, 14TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, R M V 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (CONSTITUTED AND GOVERNED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970) BO SASTRA DEPARTMENT CIRCLE OFFICE BENGALURU EAST, RAHEJA TOWERS 1ST FLOOR 26-27, M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 IFSC PUNB0382400 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SRI. E SHIVAKUMARUI 2. SRI. SANTHOSH C N S/O C N NEELAKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23941 WP No. 11970 of 2026 HEDDARAVALLI ANKIHALLI POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE VACATING NOTICE DATED 12-03-2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-G. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO RECONSIDER I.A. NO.3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND GRANT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PROTECTING THE PETITIONERS POSSESSION OVER THE SCHEDULE A PROPERTY IN O.S. NO.1956/2026. C) ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTION/S AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT TO GRANT, INCLUDING COST OF THE CASE, IN THE VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ABOVE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sold the property (schedule-B) in favour of the second respondent by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.10.2015. As per the said document, the description of properties at Schedule B, is as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23941 WP No. 11970 of 2026 Schedule ‘B’ property “297.28 sq.mtrs., of super build area on the 1st floor constructed in the schedule ‘A’ property together with 1000 sq.ft., of undivided share, right, title and interest in the schedule ‘A’ property together with common passage, common stairs, with all right of easements, together with one car parking area in ground floor situated in schedule A property with all civic amenities constructed with RCC roof mosaic flooring and semi furnished.” 2. The property schedule B was mortgaged to the first respondent/Bank by the second respondent. As the second respondent was irregular in paying the amounts, the first respondent/Bank has initiated the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’ for short ) and they have issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The petitioner who is the vendor of the second respondent is before this Court stating that now the Bank is auctioning the property which is not mortgaged to the first respondent/Bank and the measurements mentioned discloses that property is more than what is mortgaged to them. It is submitted that the petitioner has no objection if they conduct - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23941 WP No. 11970 of 2026 the auction as per the sale deed. But under the guise of the same, they cannot put the petitioner's property to sale. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Bank submits that they are going ahead with the auction as per the mortgage deed and as per the document i.e., the sale deed which is executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Bank that they are only auctioning the property which is mortgaged to them as per the sale deed dated 14.10.2015. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent/Bank to go ahead with the auction only in respect of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23941 WP No. 11970 of 2026 ‘B’ schedule property as mentioned in the sale deed dated 14.10.2015. ii. Pending IAs., if any, in the petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7