IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3808 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SRI PRADEEP SRINIVAS GOWDA, C/O SRI. V.M.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, KUNIGAL TALUK, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, RESIDING AT VALEGEREPURA, TUMKUR -572 111.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HONNAPPA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

CANARA BANK BANGALORE SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH-II, 86, 3^RD FLOOR, SPENCER TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 001.

by SUVARNA T Location: HIG H REPRESENTED BY ITS COURT OF KARNATAKA AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANJAN KELKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 09/01/2026, BEARING REF. 6298/ARM/AUCSALEFOR/2, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to;

1. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash, set aside the impugned notice dated 09.01.2026, bearing Ref:6298/ARM/AUCSALFOR/2, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-A.

2. Issue a writ of Mandamus and direct the respondent to refund the petitioner amount of Rs.24,15,750/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty) i.e., 25% of bid amount deposited by the petitioner, which includes EMD of Rs.7,26,300/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Six Thusand Three Hundred) and advance sale consideration of Rs.16,89,450/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty) and

3. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the ends of justice of equity.”

2. Petitioner had participated in the auction conducted by the respondent-Bank on 05.12.2025, he was declared as successful bidder and accordingly, the intimation letter was sent to the petitioner on 05.12.2025 at about 04.00 p.m. The total bid was Rs.96,63,000/- and the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount within one working day and balance of amount of Rs.16,89,450/- and EMD of Rs.7,26,300/-. Accordingly, as per the mandate, 25% of the bid amount was deposited by the petitioner on 06.12.2025 and in all the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.24,15,750/-. Further, the balance of Rs.72,47,250/- was to be paid by the petitioner within 15 days i.e. on or before 20.12.2025 at the concerned branch of the Bank. When things stood thus, the petitioner has got an unanimous call informing that the property in question has been transacted by the owner on 02.12.2025 itself. Upon verification, the petitioner found that the property was in-fact sold by the borrower in favour of one Narendrababu T L by-way of a sale deed dated 02.12.2025. The petitioner has also applied for the encumbrance of the property and found the transaction of the said date. Immediately petitioner has approached the Bank and informed the Bank about the sale transaction. Though the bank showed the ignorance of the said transaction at that point, it was learnt by the petitioner that in pursuance of the said information, the bank has initiated the criminal proceedings against the borrower and an FIR was also registered in the jurisdictional police station. The petitioner has sought the refund of the amount, but the respondent bank expressed inability to refund the money intimating that there exist Supreme Court guidelines barring refund of EMD amount. The petitioner has addressed two letters dated 16.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 expressing his intention of withdrawing from the bid since the bank is no more in a position to transact or sell the property in his favour due to the transaction that took place on 02.12.2025 and sought for refund of the amount. Petitioner has made detailed representation, but