IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 30478 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. RAMACHANDRA S/O GUJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. MR. PRAKASH R S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. MR HARISH R Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G S/O RAMACHANDRA, Location: HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 42, 1^ST FLOOR, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR ICICI BANK ATM, HONGASANDRA NORTH BENGALURU - 560 068 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ADMIN OFFICE, BH ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 103 IFSC CODE: TGMB000001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR RAJASHEKAR.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R;

V/O ORDER DATED 26.07.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN SA NO.334/2025 DATED 29.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -II VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT' for short) dated 29.09.2025, with the following relief:

"(a) Issue a writ of appropriate nature to set aside the impugned order passed in S.A.No. 334/2025 dated 29-09-2025 passed by the Hon'ble DEBT Recovery Tribunal-II, vide Annexure-G., (b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The contentions of the petitioners are that the petitioners have obtained loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- from respondent by mortgaging their properties. Due to various reasons, they were unable to repay it. Respondent proceeded to sell the mortgaged property and issued E-sale notice dated 04.09.2025 without following due procedure. Hence, petitioners filed petition before DRT under Section 7 of Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The DRT had directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- with the respondent on or before 09.10.2025 at 12:00 p.m. and on that condition, stayed further proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners in respect of the schedule property. The petitioners are unable to pay the said amount within a short period of time given by the DRT and it is submitted that, today he will deposit Rs.25.00 lakhs with the respondent and for deposit of remaining amount, he requires some time and he will deposit the same in two installments. The order passed by the DRT directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- at a time is illegal and erroneous. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent who filed a caveat submits that the petitioners had obtained a loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and he has not repaid the same. The outstanding amount as noted in the DRT's order is Rs.5,28,00,000/-. The petitioners are not ready to deposit the said amount and he has no intention to pay the amount to the respondent. Just to procrastinate the matter, the present petition is filed and the same itself is not maintainable. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that, the DRT considering the contentions of both the parties, had passed the impugned order and a condition was imposed to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- before 12.00 p.m. of 09.10.2025. The said order was passed on 29.09.2025. Imposing of condition for staying the proceedings initiated under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is not an illegal order.