Karnataka High Court
WP/12502/2026 of M/S SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA Vs UNION OF INDIA on 27 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:23244-DB WP No. 12502 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 12502 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 12502 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA
YAJAMANA INDUSTRIES,
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
O/AT NO.1-83/4A, SY.NO.43-2-AP 1,
CHENNAITHODY, MAVINAKATTE,
VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA 574 324.
2.
M/S. VISHNUPRIYA CASHEW INDUSTRIES
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
O/AT SY.NO.13/8A4, KADABETTU CROSS,
KADABETTU VILLAGE, BANTWAL CROSS,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA - 574 211.
3.
M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENAKTARAMANA
CASHEW RURAL INDUSTRIES,
(A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN)
O/AT 2-103, FIRST FLOOR,
CHENNAITHODY, MAVINAKATTE P.O,
BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 574 324.
4.
M/S. SHASHANK CASHEW INDUSTRIES,
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
O/AT SY. NO.79/5, PILATHABETTU,
NAINADU P.O, BANTWAL,
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA 574 211.
NO. 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
T. VARADARAJA PAI, S/O RAGHUNATH PAI T., R/AT 1-83/4, CHENNAITHODY, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA 574 324.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK KAMATH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
112, J C ROAD BANGALORE,
3.
THE GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE,
BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA- 575 001.
4.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CANARA BANK,
ARM BRANCH CIRCLE OFFICE,
BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU,
KARNATAKA-575 001.
5.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CANARA BANK, CANARA BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, 112, J C ROAD,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 002.
HC-KAR
6.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
JOINT SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001.
7.
THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF MICRO,
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
KARTAVYA BHAWAN BUILDING 03
KARTAVYA PATH
NEW DELHI-110 001.
8.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NEAR A B SHETTY CIRCLE,
PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
9.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION,
PILATHABETTU, BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA- 574 233.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G S ARUNA, HCGP FOR R8 & R9;
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN, SENIOR CGC FOR R1, R6 & R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITITION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE-A
ORDER DATED 29/09/2025 PASSED IN A.I.R.:264/2025 BY THE
DRAT AT CHENNAI AND ETC.,
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
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 filed impugning the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in IA.No.696/2025 (Waiver) in AIR (SA) No.264/2025.
2. The Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru vide order dated 28.02.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act', 2002), wherein the petitioners prayed to set aside the order dated 15.01.2025 issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru in Crl.Misc.No.285/2024 in respect of the scheduled immovable properties was rejected by the DRT and the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate was not interfered with.
HC-KAR
3. As per the demand notice issued by the bank, the total outstanding amount of the respondent - Bank was Rs.72,24,74,277/-, in respect of the 3 loans availed by the petitioner from the respondent-Bank. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and filed an application on IA.No.696/2025 for waiver of pre-deposit condition to maintain the appeal. The Tribunal however, directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the outstanding amount vide order dated 28.08.2025. But the petitioner did not make the deposit of 40% of the outstanding deposit amount till the four weeks period got expired from 28.08.2025.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner's application for waiver got dismissed, and since the appeal was not maintainable in absence of such deposit, the appeal also got dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to argue the matter on merit, when the appeal has been dismissed for as being not maintainable in the absence of
HC-KAR
the pre-deposit, we cannot entertain this writ petition. We have put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner is willing to deposit at least 25% of the total outstanding amount within a period of one month. But the petitioner is not in a position to deposit 25% of the outstanding amount. As the appeal has not been decided on merit and is dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make such deposit and as such, the appeal itself was not maintainable, we cannot interfere with this writ petition on merit.
6. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the DRAT and thus, the writ petition is dismissed, but without costs.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3