Karnataka High Court
WP/23920/2022 of SRI DURGE GOWDA Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 5 October 2026
2026:KHC:55022
CNR: KAHC010549792022 NC: 2026:KHC:55022 WP No. 23920 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23920 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI DURGE GOWDA S/O DODDAHOMBALE GOWDA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 23920 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI DURGE GOWDA
S/O DODDAHOMBALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
2.
SRI D MANJUNATH
S/O DURGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE
THUGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
3.
KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT ARALALUSANDRA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
4.
SRI LAKSHMIKANTHA GOWDA
S/O V PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE
THUGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY .M, ADVOCATE)
Verified
HC-KAR
Page 1 of 4
AND:
1.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
KANAKPURA BRANCH
NO.602 655, M G ROAD
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
MR Y S R S VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O SATHAYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. EASHWAR PRASAD .B, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. NIL DATED 18.11.2022 VIDE
ANNX-E ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 has expired. However, there are other borrowers and the writ petition survives for consideration.
Verified
HC-KAR
Page 2 of 4
2. The records reveal that despite this Court granted some protection vide order dated 08.12.2022 subject to the petitioners depositing 30% of the amount in three installments. No documents are produced demonstrating that the order passed by this Court is complied with.
3. Be that as it may, the petitioners, in the captioned writ petition, are questioning the Possession Notice dated 18.11.2022 as per Annexure-E.
4. On perusal of Annexure-E, the action initiated by the respondent – Bank/Secured Creditor is under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”).
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India and Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010)8 SCC 110 and subsequent judgments has held that the action of the Secured Creditor invoking
Verified
HC-KAR
Page 3 of 4
provisions of the SARFAESI Act are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction and the borrowers have to be relegated to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
6. Since the petitioners have taken the benefit of the interim order granted in 2002 without depositing any amount in compliance of the order dated 08.12.2022, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
Verified
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…