IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO.35054 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. E.V.SRIRAMULU S/O LATE VENKATASWAMPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS DOOR NO.152, SUGGONDAHALLY VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 563 130

2. SHRI. MANJUNATHA S/O SRI E.V.SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Di gitally signed by DOOR NO.152, SUGGONDAHALLY VILLAGE, MEGHA MOHAN MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, Location:

HIGH KARNATAKA – 563 130 COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARAVIND M NEGLUR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION BANK OF INDIA ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGER BENGALURU NORTH, NO.1234, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH MAIN, OPP: CHANDRA LAYOUT BUS STOP, BENGALURU – 560 040 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT BENGALURU DISMISSING I.A.NO.3271/2025 FILED IN SECURITIZATION APPLICATION (S.A) NO.375/2025 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A; b) CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 12.11.2025 BEARING I.A.NO.3271/2025 FILED IN SECURITIZATION APPLICATION (S.A) NO.375/2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT BENGALURU WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G; c) QUASH THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 06.11.2025 BEARING NO. ARB/83/SN15/107/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking and following relief:

“The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ:

A. Quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal- II at Bengaluru dismissing I.A.No.3271/2025, filed in Securitization Application (S.A.)

No.375/2025 which is at Annexure-‘A’;

B. Consequently, allow the application dated

12.11.2025 bearing I.A.No.3271/2025, filed in Securitization Application (S.A.) No.375/2025 before the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-II at Bengaluru which is at Annexure ‘G’;

C. Quash the Auction Sale Notice dated

06.11.2025 bearing No.ARB/83/SN15/107/ 2025-26 issued by the Respondent which is at Annexure ‘F’;

D. Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the furtherance of justice.”

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

3. The petitioners have filed SA.No.375/2025 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal contending that the sale notice issued dated 09.09.2025 bearing No.ARB/83/SN30/23/2025-26 is illegal and prayed for quashing the same. The averments are that without following the prescribed procedures provided under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the notice was issued. On 13.11.2025, the petitioners moved an application in I.A.No.3271/2025 seeking advancement of SA.No.375/2025 to stay the fresh notice issued dated 06.11.2025 for scheduling the sale of the property on 28.11.2025. Considering the prayer in SA.No.375/2025, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had observed that the relief sought in I.A.No.3271/2025 constitutes a different and distinct incident. Therefore, that cannot be considered in SA.No.375/2025 and the said advancement application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed praying for the above said reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cause of action means bundle of events that gives rise to a litigation. Therefore, merely sought for the quashing of sale notice dated 09.09.2025 cannot be considered that subsequent events shall not be considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of the very same property in the very same petition. Therefore, the said observation of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the order dated 13.11.2025 is incorrect. Since the Debt Recovery Tribunal has not g