Karnataka High Court
WP/9638/2024 of SRI KRISHNAMURTHY Vs INDIAN BANK on 2 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:25808-DB WP No. 9638 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9638 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE DASYNAIKA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 9638 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE DASYNAIKA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 15 2ND CROSS,
KUVEMPU LAYOUT,
CHIKKASANDRA,
HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560002
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
INDIAN BANK
MALLESHWARAM BRANCH
NO 15, SARASWATHI COMPLEX
5TH CROSS, MALELSHWARAM
BENGALURU 560003
REPRSENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER
BANK MANAGER
2.
SRI HARISH S, S/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 190/A
8TH CROSS,
19TH C MAIN
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
RAJAJINAGAR, 1ST N BLOCK
BENGALURU 560010
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2024 IN
RA(SA)152/2018
BY
THE
HON'BLE
DEBTS
RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI, WHICH HAS BEEN
PRODUCE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFORM THE ORDER DATED
03/08/2018 IN SA NO.87/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I BENGALURU, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
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
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ petition has been instituted impugning the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in RA (SA) 152/2018 arising out of SA 87/2018 on the file of DRT-1, Bengaluru.
HC-KAR
2. The petitioner is a borrower of the respondent-Bank and he has availed mortgage loan of Rs.24,00,000/- by mortgaging the sale deed of the property in question to secure the aforesaid loan advanced by the respondent No.1-Bank. The loan was repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.25,300/- each.
3. It appears that the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the installments and as on 07.12.2017, a sum of Rs.5,54,440/-was shortfall in payment of installments.
4. Earlier, on 07.08.2017, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- despite this payment, against the shortfall of Rs.5,44,440/-, the bank classified the loan account of the petitioner as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 02.09.2016. As the petitioner failed to comply with the demand notice, the bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 29.12.2016 and thereafter, issued an auction sale notice on 07.04.2017. The reserve price fixed for the property in question was Rs.40,00,000/-, the total outstanding amount including interest and other charges as of 31.05.2017
HC-KAR
was Rs.26,48,346/-. The bank conducted auction sale proceedings of the property in question and the sale of the property was finalized to Rs.40,50,000/- and sale certificate dated 19.02.2018 came to be issued in favour of respondent No.2.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the sale of his property, filed SA No.87/2018 before DRT-I, Bengaluru. The DRT-I vide order dated 03.08.2018 set aside the sale certificate dated 19.02.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 and quashed the sale. The bank was directed to refund the sale consideration of Rs.40,50,000/- to respondent No.2 within 15 days from the date of the order with simple interest @ 9% p.a., and respondent No.2 was directed to give back possession of schedule property to respondent No.1-bank against refund of sale consideration by respondent No.1-bank to the respondent No.2. The bank being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the DRT-I approached DRAT, Chennai in RA(SA)No.152/2018.
6. The DRAT, Chennai has allowed the appeal on the technical ground that the petitioner did not challenge the sale
HC-KAR
and he challenged only the sale certificate. We fail to comprehend the reasoning of the DRAT in allowing the appeal, when the petitioner has challenged the sale certificate, it means he has challenged the entire process of sale which culminated in issuance of sale certificate. The Tribunal has not gone into the merit of the case but allowed the appeal solely on technical ground.
7. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared nor he challenged the order passed by the DRT before the DRAT. It appears that respondent No.2 is not interested in the property and he is more interested to get his money back as directed by the DRT.
8. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed in RA (SA) 152/2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the DRAT, Chennai for fresh consideration on merits, in accordance with law.
HC-KAR
iii. The parties are directed to appear before the DRAT on 18.06.2026.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5