IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 26345 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SUDHEER NAYAK S/O LATE YASHVANTHA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3/23, HARI PRASAD, BELVAI MANAGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA 574 213 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH KINI., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by KIRAN AND:

KUMAR R Location: HIG H COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, J C ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560 002 BRANCH MANAGER 2. CANARA BANK BRANCH OFFICE MOODABIDRI P.O MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA 574 227 BRANCH MANAGER

3. ANIL CYPRIAN LOBO S/O ALEX LOBO BAILORDU HOUSE, HOSABETTU, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA 574 227 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VELANGANNI C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHENOY M, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 17.01.2022 ISSUED UNDER SEC 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE B PROPERTY (ANNEXURE-F). QUASH THE ORDER DTD 18.06.2022 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MIS. CASE NO. 187/2022 (ANNEXURE-H). QUASH THE ORDER DTD 05.02.2024 PASSED BY THE DRT-1 IN IA NO. 51/2023 IN SA NO. 19/2023 (ANNEXURE-L). QUASH THE PAPER PUBLICATION DTD 10.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE B PROPERTY (ANNEXURE-M).

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 has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

A. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 17.01.2022 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, in respect of B schedule property (Annexure-F);

B. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.06.2022 and all proceedings in Crl. Misc. case No.187/2022 ( Annexure-H);

C. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by DRT-1 in IA No. 51 of 2023 in SA No.19/2023 ( Annexure-L);

D. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the paper publication dated 10.09.2024 in respect of Schedule B property (Annexure-M).

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

3. The petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor for the loan transaction with respondent No.1 Bank. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner and is in continuous possession of the property bearing No.105, admeasuring 950 sq.ft., situated at Moodbidri Town, described as Schedule-B property. Respondent No.3 is the Vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the property in 2013. Respondent No.3 has allegedly mortgaged the property in 2010. The petitioner is not a party to the petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. The respondent Bank affixed a notice outside the subject premises, calling upon the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the subject property. Further, the order under Section 14 of the Act came to be passed. The petitioner filed a Securitization Application assailing the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2024 on the ground that it has been filed belatedly and in view of inapplicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. The respondent-Bank filed a statement of objections contending, among one of the several other grounds that the petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has not availed the equal efficacious remedy, which was available to him. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is the vendor of the petitioner. The petitio