SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438412

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M/S BALAJI STEEL AND PIPES – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
WP 33161/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 33161 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S BALAJI STEEL AND PIPES

REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 4, 16 AND 17,

SY. NO.68, MYLASANDRA,

UTTARAHALLI, KENGERI,

BANGALORE - 560 060

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

2. MR. P. VENUGOPAL NAIDU,

S/O. LATE P.G. KANNAIAH NAIDU

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

Digitally signed

by MEGHA RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,

MOHAN

L H o I c G a H ti o C n O :

URT

2ND MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,

OF

KARNATAKA PADMANABHA NAGAR,

BANGALORE- 560 070

3. MRS. P. SUBAMMA,

W/O P. VENUGOPAL NAIDU,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,

2ND MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,

PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 070 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.A.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 40, JHOGH TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, 27TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA, 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 041 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY HONORABLE DRT-II IN SA NO. 116/2025 DAED

17.10.2025 ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

"PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a. To quash/aside the order passed by Hon'ble DRT-II in S.A.No.116/2025 dated 17.10.2025 ANNEXURE-"A" in the interest of justice and equity.

b. To pass any other orders which this court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that petitioner No.1 firm is into trading activities and the main business is procuring raw materials from manufacturers and in turn disturbing steel pipes and allied products to its various cliental all over the State. The petitioner No.1 had obtained loan in the year 2014. In the year 2020, the petitioner approached the respondent/Bank for restructuring the loan accounts and the Bank restructured the loan accounts by substituting the rate of interest from 13% per annum to 10.45% per annum. It is stated that to the surprise of the petitioners, rate of interest is not charged on fixed rate of interest @13% p.a. but have charged on floating rate of interest which is contrary to the Loan Agreement dated 30.08.2014 and 26.09.2014. The account of the petitioner was declared as non-performing asset on 14.10.2024. On 18.10.2024, notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the respondent/Bank. Later, possession notice was issued on 31.12.2024. According to the petitioner, it was not served on all the petitioners. The petitioners have questioned the same before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, at Bengaluru by filing S.A.No.105/2025. Thereafter, the respondent/Bank had filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the II ACJM, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.690/2025 and an order was passed to take possession of the scheduled properties. Questioning the same, the petitioners had filed S.A.No.116/2025. The Tribunal had dismissed S.A.No.116/2025 and S.A.No.105/2025 on

17.10.2025.

3. As far as the order passed in S.A.No.105/2025 is concerned, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending consideration. As far as the order passed in S.A.No.116 /2025 is concerned, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that when the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are initiated by the Bank and the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well, questioning the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and when two Securitization Applications were dismissed on the same day, why the petitioner has challenged one order before this Court by filing this writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top