Karnataka High Court
WA/1810/2026 of YERMAL VARADARAJ SHENOY Vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES on 19 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010506462026 NC: 2026:KHC:44625-DB WA No. 1810 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1810 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1810 OF 2026 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
YERMAL VARADARAJ SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O Y.G. SHENOY
R/A NO. B104, BLOCK B
FIRST FLOOR, SUVIDA HOMES
PHASE-2, UDUPI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 576 104
2.
RAKESH ESHWAR BANGERA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O ESHWAR A BANGERA
R/A NO. C109, BLOCK C
FIRST FLOOR, SUVIDA HOMES
PHASE-2, UDUPI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 576 104
3.
SWAPNA SHASHIKANT PATIL
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
W/O SHASHIKANT N. PATIL
R/A NO. B105, BLOCK B
FIRST FLOOR, SUVIDA HOMES
PHASE-2, UDUPI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 576 104
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
KUNDAPURA(TMC)- WARD NO.8
KUNDAPURA, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KARNATAKA - 576 201
2.
THE BHATKAL URBAN
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
P.B. NO.15, 66/1, MAIN ROAD
BHATKAL - 581 320
BY ITS MANAGER
3.
SERENE ISLES RECREATION
PRIVATE LIMITED
VEERA HANUMAN MARG
CHITPADY P.B. NO.27
UDUPI - 576 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
SMT. VEENA GOPALKRISHNA NAYAK
4.
SRI P. GOPALKRISHNA NAYAK
VEERA HANUMAN MARG
CHITPADY, UDUPI - 576 101
5.
SRI VILAS GOPALKRISHNA NAYAK
HANUMAN COMPOUND
VEERA HANUMAN MARG
CHITAPADI, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101
6.
NAGARATHANA VILAS NAYAK
HANUMAN COMPOUND
VEERA HANUMAN MARG
CHITAPADI, UDUPI DISTRICT 576101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R-1)
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT ORDER DATED 12/06/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.2259/2025 IN DISPOSING OF THE WRIT
PETITION, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
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 JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.2259/2025 (CS-RES), whereby the court had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.
2. The appellants had filed the aforesaid petition impugning a sale notice No.JRD/UBF/HUBLI/1438/22/23 CIP NO.02/2024/25 dated 16.12.2024 for sale of their mortgage properties. The appellants also prayed that directions be issued to respondent
HC-KAR
Nos.1 to 6 to pay compensation due to auctioning of the properties in question.
3. Mr. Jayakumar.S.Patil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the subject properties had been mortgaged prior to the same being sold to the appellants. He submits that the value of the subject properties is a fraction of the amount claimed by the secured creditor. Thus, it would be difficult to meet the pre-condition of filing an appeal under Sections 105 and 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [KCS Act].
4. Undisputedly, the appellants have a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 105 of the KCS Act. The learned Single Judge also directed that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 be extended to the appellants, if they avail the appellate remedy.
5. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. Concededly, the statutory requirement of a pre-deposit cannot be avoided by circumventing the appellate remedy and invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. No
HC-KAR
ground is made to interfere with the impugned order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15