IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 28055 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SRI RIZWAN AMEER

S/O M AMEER MOHAMMED,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

R/AT NO.333, 16^TH CROSS,

4^TH MAIN, RAJ MAHAL VILAS,

II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094.

Digitally signed …PETITIONER

by MEGHA

MOHAN (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIG H

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

AND:

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,

STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,

11/90, III FLOOR, NEAR OLD SHIVAJI THEATRE,

J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD 02.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK VIDE 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:

“Wherefore the petitioner most humbly pray that in the interest of justice the Hon’ble Court be pleased to:- a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the possession notice dated 02.12.2023 issued by the respondent/bank vide Annexure-A.

b) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and one Mr. Syed Hussain are the absolute owners of the property and they are residing at site No.5, PID No.2-245-5, Assessment No.296 in No.38, Poornapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, now called 1^st Cross, Pipeline Road, MES Road, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.2, Yeshawantapur, Bengaluru, with building thereon. They have obtained a loan of an amount of Rs.41,00,000/- from the respondent/bank on 17.11.2007. The petitioner and the co-applicant have repaid the credit to the bank in a total sum of Rs.86,32,903/- through 140 installments on various dates. The first installment of an amount of Rs.29,442/- was paid on 08.03.2008 and the last installment of an amount of Rs.7,500/- was paid on

12.08.2021. It is the case that inspite of paying the entire amount, the bank had initiated the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the demand notice was issued on 11.10.2021. Upon receipt of demand notice, the petitioner had sent reply on 25.10.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that when he had given a reply to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent/bank had not replied referring to the grounds that are raised in the said reply and in a mechanical manner now a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is issued by the respondent/bank which is challenged before this Court.

3. When this matter came up on 14.12.2023 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for “preliminary hearing”, an interim order was granted directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- within a period of three weeks from the date of order and another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- within another three weeks thereafter and any deviation in paying the amount within the timeline as stipulated, even on the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the order, they have deposited the amount on 23.01.2024. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank that the amount is deposited before this Court. Hence, they have come up with this application seeking permission to withdraw the amount. It is submitted that the petitioner ought to have deposited the amount with the bank and it cannot be deposited before this Court. It is submitted that in the reply that is given by them they have categorically mentioned how much amount is outstanding and how the account is declared as NPA. It is submitted th