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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20054

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
SMT. K. LALITHA – Appellant
Versus
HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP 7820/2024



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17061 WP No. 7820 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 7820 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. K. LALITHA W/O SRI. K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA MURTHY,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 248, 6TH MAIN,

4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

2. SRI. NAVEEN KRISHNA B S/O SRI. BALAKRISHNA K,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 151/2, 26TH CROSS,

Digitally signed by 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, SHARADAVANI B

Location: High BANGALORE - 560 081.

Court of Karnataka

THE SECOND PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,

SRI. K. LAKSHMINARASIMHA MURTHY.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MARILINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17061 WP No. 7820 of 2024

HC-KAR AND:

HANUMANTHNAGARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1904, NO. 7/29, 3RD MAIN ROAD,

1ST CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019,

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. DEVARAJA A, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RETURN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONERS AT THE TIME OF BORROWING THE LOAN. SINCE THE PETITIONERS ARE READY AND WILLING TO PAY THE LOAN AMOUNT AS PER THE DEMAND LETTER DTD 08.08.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND

ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17061 WP No. 7820 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking direction

against the respondent/co-operative society to accept the

balance loan dues and return the original documents. 2. The petition is stoutly opposed by the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent on two principal grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the respondent being a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, does not answer the description of “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus is not maintainable against such a private body. Secondly, it is urged that the secured asset mortgaged by the petitioners has already been brought to sale in a public auction conducted on 11.03.2026 and the auction proceedings having been concluded, the relief sought in the writ

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17061 WP No. 7820 of 2024

HC-KAR

petition has become infructuous and cannot be granted at

this stage.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties. Perused the pleadings and the material placed on

record.

4. Having given anxious consideration to the rival

submissions, this Court finds considerable force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is a well-settled principle of law that a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie only against the State or its instrumentalities or against such bodies which discharge public duties or statutory functions having a public element. A co- operative society registered under the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959, in the absence of any material to demonstrate that it is either controlled by the State or discharging any public duty, remains essentially a

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17061 WP No. 7820 of 2024

HC-KAR

private body. In such circumstances, no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel performance of obligations which are purely contractual or arise out of private law remedies. The petitioners have not placed any material to bring the respondent within the ambit of Article 12 or to establish that the respondent is discharging any public function so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article

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