Karnataka High Court
WP/35299/2025 of MR S PADMANABHA RAO Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER SIR M. VISVESHVARAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK, on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010752782025 NC: 2026:KHC:51713 WP No. 35299 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 35299 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MR S PADMANABHA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 35299 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
MR S PADMANABHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O. SUBBARAO SHANKAR RAO
2.
SMT. JAYANTHI P
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O. S. PADMANABHA RAO
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.68,
1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS
AMARJYOTHINAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
SIR M. VISVESHVARAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
NO. 109, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD
SHANKAR PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 004
2.
M/S. TRIDENT AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. (COMPANY)
NO.1, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS
HC-KAR
SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 003
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHRUTHI B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASANNA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.11.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, BENGALURU, IN SA
NO.287/2023 (ANNEXURE H ) AS IT IS NOT ONLY AGAINST
THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, BUT ALSO OPPOSED TO PUBLIC
POLICY AND PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Set aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Bengaluru in SA.No.287/2023 (Annexure-A) as it is not only against the provision of the Act, but also opposed to public policy and passes without application of mind;
b) As a consequential relief to set aside the "Sale Certificate" Annexure-R dated 28.02.2024 issued in favour of 2nd respondent - auction purchaser and
c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
HC-KAR
2. The petitioners seeks to assail the order dated 13.11.20251 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru2 in SA.No.287/2023.
3. The impugned order is passed under rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20023. Admittedly, a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under the provisions of the said Act.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that ex-facie there is violation of Rule 9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 20024. In support of his contention reliance in placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Delta Printing House and others V.s Authorized Officer and others5. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court interprets Rule 9 of 1 Hereinafter referred as to 'impugned order' 2 Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal' 3 Hereinafter referred as to 'Act' 4 Hereinafter referred s to 'Rule' 5 WP.No.36694/2017 and connected matters DD 05.08.2026.
HC-KAR
the Rules. The said question is to be adjudicated in the appeal that is filed assailing the impugned order dated 13.11.2025.
5. In view of the aforementioned, the writ petition is disposed of. This order shall not preclude the petitioners in availing remedies as may be permissible under law.
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1