Sri Venkata Rao G M v. M/S Tjsb Sahakari Bank Ltd

ORDER DATED

10.12.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.50128/2021 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU VIDE ANENXURE-F; 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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who is the borrower and an admitted defaulter, is before this Court calling in question the action initiated by respondent–Secured Creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act').

¶2It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily the writ jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be invoked to interdict the measures undertaken by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, particularly when an efficacious statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved borrower. Despite the aforesaid settled position, this Court, taking a lenient view in favour of the petitioner, had granted interim protection by order dated 11.02.2022,

subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the amount due.

¶3The petitioner, however, failed to avail the benefit of the conditional protection so granted. Despite being afforded an opportunity to make the requisite deposit and thereby demonstrate his bona fides, the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed by this Court. Consequently, by a detailed order dated 29.04.2025, the interim order came to be vacated.

¶4Even after vacation of the interim order, the respondent–Bank has been unable to proceed with the recovery measures solely on account of the continued pendency of the present writ petition. The record, therefore, does not disclose any circumstance warranting further interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶5More importantly, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to regularise the loan account by complying with the condition imposed under the interim

order. The failure to deposit even the amount stipulated by this Court, coupled with the admitted default, clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has not evinced any bona fide inclination to liquidate the outstanding dues. The pendency of the writ petition cannot, in such circumstances, operate as a shield against the lawful recovery measures available to the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.

In that view of the matter, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

The respondent–Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3099 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENKATA RAO G M S/O VENKATESH MALLAKONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.63, K R GARDEN 2ND STAGE, 1ST CROSS, COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU-560005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN .S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S TJSB SAHAKARI BANK LTD JAYANAGARA BRANCH, OFFICE AT NO.19 ALOKA MANSION, 10TH B MAIN ROAD 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560011 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER SRI HARIPRASAD SHETTIGAR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.R. VISHWANATH ,ADVOCATE [NOC]) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED