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) 25196

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
SRI N S RAJESH ACHARYA – Appellant
Versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Respondent
WP 31599/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31599 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SRI N.S.RAJESH ACHARYA AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE MR N.SHIVARAYA ACHARYA, RESIDING AT NO.23-9-610, KAIKAMBA NILAYA, MONKEY STAND NEW ROAD, MANGALADEVI PANDESHWAR 4, MANGALURU-575001.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUMA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, GROUND FLOOR, PARADIGM PLAZA, PANDESHWAR ROAD, Digitally signed by NEAR A B SHETTY CIRCLE, SUVARNA T Location: PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575001.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, THOKKOTU MANGALURU BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, SHALOM HEIGHTS APARTMENT, BHAT NAGAR, THOKKOTU, MANGALURU-575020.

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, NO.239, VIDHANA BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND CANCEL THE E-AUCTION SALE DATED 30.01.2025 (ANNEXURE- B) AND TO QUASH THE SALE CERTIFICATE (ANNEXURE-G) DATED 20.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF NON AGRICULTURAL IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED IN JEPPINAMOGORU VILLAGE OF MANGALORE TALUK WITHIN SUB DISTRICT REGISTRATION OF MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT AND COMPRISED IN R.S NO. 92-2A3 (SHOWN AS 92-2A3P55 IN RTC) CONVERTED TO THE EXTENT OF 10 CENTS TOGETHER WITH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BEARING D.NO. 4-161/1(1), 4-161/1(2) AND 4-

160/1 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“PRAYER The honourable court may be pleased to I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and cancel the e-auction sale dated 30-1-2025 (Anx.B) and to quash the sale certificate (Anx. G) dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in respect of non agricultural immovable property situated in Jeppinamogoru Village of Mangalore Taluk within Sub District registration of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District and comprised in R.S No. 92- 2A3 [Shown as 92-2A3P55 in RTC] converted to the extent of 10 cents together with residential building bearing D.No.4-161/1(1), 4-161/1(2) & 4-160/1.

II. refund the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner at 18% p.a. from the date of auction till payment III. Direct the Respondents to reimburse/pay the medical expenses of $10,00,000/- incurred by the petitioner for the treatment of his wife;

IV. Further direct the respondent to pay the litigation costs borne by the petitioner in this regard;

V. grant costs and other reliefs as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.01.2025, the respondent/Bank made a publication in the newspaper regarding E-auction of non agricultural immovable property situated in Jeppinamogoru Village of Mangalore Taluk within Sub District registration of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The petitioner had participated in the auction. On

30.01.2025, the Bank had confirmed the sale of the property and accepted bid of Rs.65,65,000/-. Immediately, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. On 31.01.2025, the Bank had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bank had not given possession of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner was kept in a position of uncertainty wherein he was made liable to repay the bank loan, but was denied any legal title, possession or ownership rights to the property concerned. Despite complying with the financial obligations, the respondent/bank had failed and neglected to hand over the physical possession of the said property to the petitioner. Hence, a leg

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