Karnataka High Court
WP/16838/2022 of MR JUNAID MELKAR ABBAS Vs CANARA BANK on 6 October 2026
2026:KHC:55437
CNR: KAHC010383762022 NC: 2026:KHC:55437 WP No. 16838 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16838 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MR. JUNAID MELKAR ABBAS S/O ABBAS PANE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 16838 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. JUNAID MELKAR ABBAS
S/O ABBAS PANE MANGALORE
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.410
PEARL RESIDENCY, B-MOODA
KAIKAMBA, JODUMARGA
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 219.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY KUMAR V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
CANARA BANK
A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING
ARM BRANCH, CO BUILDING
MANGALURU-575 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER
JALLESH DINAKARAN.
2.
M/S IKHALAS FAMILY FASHION
AND FAMILY CARE
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR
MH HEIGHTS, MELKAR
Verified
HC-KAR
Page 1 of 4
BANTWAL, KARNATAKA-574 231
REPRESNETED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. PM.ABBAS.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BRIJESH CHANDER GURU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE
NOTICE DATED 11.07.2022 VIDE REF:ARM/MNG/F293/170- 2022-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS THE SAME IS
WITHOUT
FOLLOWING
MANDATORY
PROVISIONS
AS
CONTEMPLATED
UNDER
THE
PROVISIONS
OF
THE
SECURITIZATION
AND
RECONSTRUCTION
OF
FINANCIAL
ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT
(VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the default borrower assailing the sale notice of secured assets by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). Contrary
Verified
HC-KAR
Page 2 of 4
to consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court and directions issued to the writ Court not to entertain writ petition filed by the default borrower, however, this Court granted some indulgence and stalled the recovery proceedings subject to petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.38,00,000/- in 3 installments.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- bank on instructions, submits that the interim order is not complied.
4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is questioning the action contemplated by the respondent- bank invoking the provisions of SARFAESI Act, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and petitioner ought to have availed the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Verified
HC-KAR
Page 3 of 4
5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the light of law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyavati Tondon and Others reported in [(2010) 8 SCC 110], that writ petition is not maintainable. The conduct of the petitioner also appears to be grossly unfair, having obtained interim order, not a single ruppee is deposited with the respondent-bank.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
Verified
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…