Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22713
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
B M SHYAM PRASAD, J
MRS ROOPA W/O LATE SANTHOSH C P – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 26442 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. ABHIJITH MM.
For the Respondents: SRI. VIGNESH S. SHETTY
Court directed deferral of proceedings under SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the petitioner's willingness to settle the loan.
Headnote:In the judgment concerning WRIT PETITION NO. 26442 OF 2025, the court analyzed the SARFAESI Act and the implications for the petitioner's loan default due to her husband's death. It found that the petitioner's willingness to settle the loan should be considered, and hence, the respondents were ordered to defer their proceedings for four weeks to allow the petitioner to offer the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,00,000. The issues encompassed whether the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act were valid given the circumstances surrounding the loan default. The court reasoned that giving the petitioner a chance to settle the loan before proceeding was appropriate. The final outcome was that the petition was disposed of with the aforementioned direction to defer proceedings.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner's late husband has availed loan with the respondent - Bank and there is default that has resulted in the initiation of the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]. The petitioner has called in question such initiation. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that her husband has died suddenly in the year 2019 and despite all constraints, she has served the loan until June 2024 and that she is in default only because of constraints.
Mr. Abijith M. M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks indulgence relying upon the afore circumstances and submits that if this Court would intervene, the petitioner will pay the entire amount due. Mr. Vignesh S. Shetty, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits on, instructions, that the petitioner will have to pay an outstanding of Rs.6,00,000/- before 30.09.2025 and that if this amount is paid, the loan will be regularised. These submissions narrow down the canvas for decision, and the decision must be not only in view of the afore but also the petitioner’s case that she is willing to settle the loan.
On a careful consideration, this Court opines that the respondents must defer proceedings for a period of four [4] weeks with liberty to the petitioner to offer Rs.6,00,000/- as of today and to regularise the loan if the amount is paid. If the petitioner does not offer this amount within the said period, the respondents must be at liberty to continue the proceedings, but without prejudice to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. It would be needless to observe that if indeed the petitioner offers the amount as aforesaid, the respondents can always consider the terms for closure of the loan. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms.
