IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO.35971 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUDDAPPA S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HARSHA KUTEERA

72/1 C EXTENSION SHANKARAPURA CHAMARAJANAGARA, KARNATAKA - 571 313 Digitally signed by MEGHA THE PROPRIETOR OF MOHAN Location: HIG H COURT OF M/S CHAMARJESHWARA CABLE NETWORK KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. V ARUMUGA NAINAR, MANAGER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, JSS CAMPUS, BARCHAIAH DOUBLE ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT IN SA NO.329/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction and quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal at in S.A.No.329/2025 at Annexure-A.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction and quash the impugned e-auction notice dated 06.11.2025 bearing No.OR/E- Auction/170/2025-26 issued by the Respondent at Annexure-B.

c. Issue a direction to the Respondent Bank to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to make an arrangement for One Time Settlement repayment facility with reasonable time framework.

d. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- of loan under different loan accounts from the year 2013, 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner was irregular in repayment of the loan amount since he was the only bread earner in the family. The respondent/bank without following the strict provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, stating its intention of taking the symbolic possession of the property. It is further stated that the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the said actions of the petitioner to the respondent in SA.No.329/2025 and on 24.09.2025, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had granted interim relief staying the auction sale dated 26.09.2025.

3. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner has made a representation to the bank dated 25.09.2025 for one time settlement since default of the petitioner was due to reasons stated in the petition. It appears that the said bank has not accepted the case of the petitioner for one time settlement. The respondent/bank issued a notice as per Annexure-B dated 06.11.2025 under Section 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, indicating that if the amount is not paid, they will hold e-auction on 28.11.2025. It appears that the bank has proceeded with the matter. With these reasons, the petitioner approached this Court seeking interim relief of stay of operation of the e-auction to be held on 28.11.2025 and also restrain the respondent/bank from initiating any further action in furtherance of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a borrower and obtained a loan from the respondent/bank. It is also not in dispute that he is a defaulter in repayment of the amount in terms of the contract. The petitioner has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal in this relation and according to contention o