IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 36717 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SWAROOP H SHIVAPPA

S/O A D SHIVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

NO. 241, ANURGRAHA

SOMINAKOPPA ROAD SAHYADRI,

SHIMOGA-577201

…PETITIONER

Digitally

signed by

SUNITHA K S

(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COURT

OF

KARNATAKA AND: 1. ICICI HOME FINANCE

REGISTERED OFFICE ICICI BANK TOWERS,

BANDRA KURLA COMPLES,

MUMBAI-400051

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No. ICICI BRANCH AT 1^ST FLOOR, OFFINE NO. 361/2-361/2-1232 JAYACHANDRA BUILDING PB GOWDA COMPOUND

4^TH CROSS, PARK EXTENSION, DURGIGUDI SHIMOGA-577201 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER

2. A D SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO. 241, ANURGRAHA SOMINAKOPPA ROAD SAHYADRI, SHIMOGA-577201 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 17.11.2025 BEARING NOTICE ID 1019 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-E). DIRECT THE R-1 BANK NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE STEPS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE SARFAESI ACT AND RULES.

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

*****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the demand notice dated 17.11.2025 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act vide Annexure-E.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner obtained a loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent No.1 Bank to be repaid in 120 monthly instalments. Due to the deteriorating health condition of the petitioner’s father, he could not make the monthly payments on time. The respondent No.1 Bank issued a demand notice dated 17.11.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for brevity) vide Annexure-E. The petitioner, aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, filed this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained a loan from respondent Bank and was regularly repaying the monthly instalments. Due to the deteriorating health condition of his father, he could not make the monthly payments in time. The respondent Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by issuing the impugned notice vide Annexure-E. He submits that the impugned notice issued by the respondent Bank is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent Bank has issued a notice vide Annexure-E under Section 13(2)

of the SARFAESI Act. It is a show-cause notice. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the show cause notices. Show cause notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act really does not affect any right or liability of the action because, by itself, a notice does not affect any right or liability of the borrower. Hence, challenge to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is premature, since it is not possible that the secured creditor may be satisfied with the reply of the borrower to the said notice, and may drop the proceedings. Hence, the writ petition challenging the notice under Section

13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is liable to be dismissed.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India reported in AIR Online 2004 SC 948 and in the case of Digivision Electronics Vs. Indian Bank and another reported in 126 Company cases 631, held that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable, and the writ petition filed by the borrower is premature. The impugned notice at Annexure-E is a show cause notice. The petitioner withou