OF

RESIDING AT H NO 1402,

KARNATAKA

SMG ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR,

BANGARPET-563 114,

KOLAR DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY (NOC), ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6720

WP No. 12736 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,

ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,

KARNATAKA BANK BUILDING,

1ST FLOOR, WARD NO 29,

MARALUR EXTENSION,

SADASHIVANAGAR,

TUMKURU - 574 154

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R IN CP

7421/25)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK VIZ,

NOTICE TO INTENDS TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER SARFAESI ACT, DATED

16.04.2025 ARM B/RF/11/OR-14/25-26.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

*****

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6720

WP No. 12736 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

the notice dated 16.04.2025 issued by the respondent-Bank

vide Annexure-D intending to take the physical possession of

immovable property under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short).

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition

are as follows:

2.1. The petitioners availed a housing loan of

Rs.12,15,000/- for constructing a residential house from

respondent-Bank. Further, the petitioners requested the

bank for one time settlement vide communication dated

09.08.2021, 31.01.2024 and 02.08.2024. However, the

respondent-Bank did not agree for one time settlement. The

respondent-Bank issued a notice dated 16.04.2025 intending

to take the physical possession of the immovable property

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6720

WP No. 12736 of 2025

HC-KAR

pursuant to the order passed by the Principal Senior civil

Judge and CJM, Kolar in Crl. Misc. No. 30/2025 dated

22.03.2025. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed this

writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,

the petitioners approached the respondent-Bank for one time

settlement; however, the respondent-Bank did not give an

opportunity for one time settlement. He submits that the

impugned notice is issued without issuing any demand notice

and complying the principles of natural justice. Hence, on

these grounds, prays to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

5Bank submits that, already the possession order has been

issued by the Trial Court and pursuant to it, the petitioners

have preferred an application before the Debt recovery

Tribunal and the same is pending. She submits that the bank

has already taken the physical possession of the property in

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6720

WP No. 12736 of 2025

HC-KAR

pursuance of the order. She submits that the DRT has

already seized the matter and the present Petition is not

maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the

petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is undisputed that the petitioner availed the

loan from the respondent-Bank and committed the default in

repayment of the same. The respondent-Bank initiated the

proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued the

impugned notice vide Annexure-D. However, it is pertinent

to note that the possession order has already been passed

by the Magistrate court in Crl. Mis. No. 30/2025 dated

22.03.2025 and subsequent to it, the same has been

challenged by the petitioners herein before the Debt

Recovery tribunal and the same is pending. Since the

impugned notice is issued in furtherance of the possession

order passed by the Magistrate in Crl. Misc. No.30/2025 and

the application filed by the petitioners challenging the same

- 6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6720

WP No. 12736 of 2025

HC-KAR

is pending before the DRT, the present writ petition is not

maintainable.

8. The petitioners ought to have questioned the

impugned notice before the Debt recovery Tribunal