IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO.349 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . CANARA BANK ARM-1 BRANCH, NO.86, SPENCER’S TOWER, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, MR.B. RAVIPRASAD ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . MR. SUBRAMANYA RAO K S/O LATE K. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, JAYANTHI NAGARA, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, KARKALA – 574 104 UDUPI DISTRICT.

2 . MRS. H.N. NAGARATHNA W/O SUBRAMANYA RAO K, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, JAYANTHI NAGARA, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, KARKALA – 574 104 UDUPI DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI A.S. RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.3677/2022 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shetty Vignesh Shivaram for the appellant, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Aditya Sondhi with learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Ravikumar for respondent Nos.1 and 2 appearing on caveat, at length.

2. The appellant herein is the Canara Bank-original respondent No.1 in the writ petition filed by the respondents herein. The appellant-Bank has challenged the judgment and order dated 12^th January 2024 passed by learned Single Judge.

2.1 Allowing the petition in part, a mandamus came to be issued to the respondent-appellant Bank to refund the amount of Rs.3.25 crores to the petitioner. It was directed to pay the interest on the said amount if the Bank fails to provide the details of second auction and confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchasers, to the petitioner.

3. The facts in the back drop may be noticed in a nutshell. The appellant Bank conducted e-auction on 29^th November 2021 of the property described as No.19, 11^th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru. The auction was conducted by the appellant Bank under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, seeking to recover the amount due. The petitioners participated and purchased the property as successful bidder paying Rs.3.25 crores which was 25% of the bid amount. The balance 75% amount to the extent of Rs.9.75 crores was to be paid within 15 days as per the condition of the bid towards final bid amount.

3.1 As the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioners, they were intimated on 14^th December 2021 to pay the said remainder amount. On 13^th January 2022, a communication was sent by the petitioners seeking extension of 30 days to pay the amount. The Bank replied asking the petitionera to remit the balance amount on or before 28^th January 2022. On the said date, the petitioners again sent a communication asking for further extension for 30 days. It was stated by the petitioners that they were in the process of securing the amount and the loan process was underway with the HDFC Bank. By way of reply of even date, the Bank intimated that if the amount is not paid by 10^th February 2022, the sale in favour of the petitioners will be cancelled and the amount paid will be forfeited without further notice.

3.2 By filing writ petition on 10^th February 2022, the petitioners prayed to direct the Bank to consider the aforementioned communication/ representation dated 28^th January 2022 whereby further extension of time was prayed for. A further prayer was made to set aside the reply of the Bank dated 28^th January 2022 aforementioned. The prayer was made t