WP/23906/2025 of VOYEGER APARTMENT PRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs CANARA BANK on 6 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :- (a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other order quashing the impugned E-Auction Sale Notice dated 15.07.2025 issued by the 1st respondent published on 20.07.2025 in the New Sunday

HC-KAR

Express English daily fixing the date of auction on 22.08.2025 vide Annexure-A.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or writ directing the Respondent Bank not to proceed with the auction until the rights of the Petitioners are adjudicated by the competent Civil Courts;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Bank to maintain status quo with respect to possession and enjoyment of residential and commercial premises.

d) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd respondent herein for the purchase of the residential apartments constructed by the 2nd respondent, and they have paid certain amounts. The 2nd respondent had availed a project loan from the 1st respondent/bank. When the 2nd respondent failed to pay the loan amount, the bank issued an auction notification on 06.10.2018. When the 2nd respondent failed to complete the construction and register the property, the petitioners approached the Consumer Forum as well as the Civil Court by filing a suit for specific performance. In some of the cases, the Consumer Forum has passed orders, and in one of the matters,

HC-KAR

the Commercial Court has decreed the suit. Against that, an appeal is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners have approached this Court, stating that the respondent/bank is taking coercive steps and they have been in possession of the property.

3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.08.2025, directed that the e-auction be deferred, subject to the petitioners bearing the cost of re-notification of the e- auction and to collectively deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the registry, subject to further orders of the Court. Thereafter, that interim order was extended. The bank filed its objections.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they have paid almost the entire amount to respondent No.2 and respondent No.1/Bank cannot proceed with the auction. It is submitted that, whatever the outstanding amount, the bank can sell the other flats available, and whatever the remaining amount that has to be paid to the vendor by the petitioners will be paid to the bank. With that, they will be able to clear the entire dues to the bank. It is submitted that, if the bank proceeds with the auction, all the petitioners who have

HC-KAR

paid most of the sale consideration will be put to lot of hardship, as they are in possession of the property.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/Bank submits that, in respect of some of the flats, there are tripartite agreements, and the borrower has been paying the loans without any default. Further, the petitioners herein are only agreement holders. They have no locus to come before the Court. It is submitted that the Bank has no contractual obligation with the petitioners. If at all there is any obligation between the Bank and the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have no locus to come before this Court, and this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that even when SARFAESI proceedings are initiated, as there is an alternative remedy, the writ petitions are not entertained, and it is submitted that the petitioners cannot approach this Court seeking for such a relief, and the writ petition has to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that he is negotiating with the Bank for a one-time

HC-KAR

settlement. With regard to the petitioners' right, it is submitted that, according to them, they are agreement holders. In respect to that, the suits are pending and the litigation is ongoing. At this point of time, the petitioners cannot seek any relief from this Court, and the writ petition is not maintainable.

7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The first and foremost issue is whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. The petitioner is questioning the auction notification issued by the Bank. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/Bank, there is no contractual obligation between the Bank and the petitioners. In that case, the question of filing a writ petition against the Bank will not arise. As far as the contractual relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is concerned, they have already availed the remedy before the Civil Court and the Consumer Forum and they can pursue that remedy. But they cannot maintain a writ petition. The private disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent cannot be decided by this Court, and a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is not

HC-KAR

maintainable. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

ii. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79