WP/19703/2026 of SYED UZAIFA TRADERS Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 22 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"i) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI by Quashing the order dated 12-02-2026 passed in Crl. Misc. 236/2025 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Hassan vide ANNEXURE-K.

ii) Consequently quash the entire proceedings initiated by the 2nd Respondent: HDB -Financial Services Ltd by its Authorized officer by invoking Section 13(2), 13(4) & 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 Annexure H.

iii) Pass such other order/ orders or Direction/s that this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

HC-KAR

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are purchasers under a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), whereunder the petitioner is a tenant for a period of 10 years. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Clause (a) and Clause (l) of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 13.11.2003, which reads as under:

"(a) That the lessee/purchaser is hereby put in possession of the schedule site as a tenant thereon for a period of ten years or in the event of lease being determined earlier till the date of such determination of lease. The amount deposited by the lessee/purchaser towards the value of the schedule site shall during the period oftenancy be held by the lessor' vendor as a security deposit for the due performance of the terms and conditions of these presents.

xxxxxx

(l) That the lessee/purchaser shall not alienate the schedule site of the building to be built thereon by way of sale, mortgage, tenancy or creating of charge thereon and by any other mode and disposal to any person or body, except in favour of Lessor/Vendor during the period of tenancy. Provided the lessee/purchaser can mortgage the schedule site in favour of a schedule or Co-operative Bank for securing financial assistance for construction of a builing on the schedule premises. But however such mortgagee will not get any absolute right or ownership over such property in case of default by the lessee/purchaser except to sell the same to the Lessor/Vendor for the amount due thereon."

HC-KAR

3. The primary contention put forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner does not hold any markable title to the property in question which is the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20021.

4. The contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner is ex- facie untenable and liable to be rejected. The petitioner admittedly being a borrower from respondent No.2, it is not open for the petitioner to question as to the markable title of the property, in respect of which the proceedings is sought be initiated under the Act. The secured creditor having initiated proceedings under the Act, it is for the secured creditor to realise the credit facilities granted by taking various measures as provided under the Act. When the said measures are taken, it is for the secured creditor to demonstrate in the course of the said proceedings the validity of said measure.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merit.

1 Hereinafter referred as to ' Act'

HC-KAR

6. Pending IAs., if any, also stand disposed of.

(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2