logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 464 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 102266 of 2026 (GM-DRT)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
Parties : Dr. Rakesh Shavi & Others Versus Union Bank of India, Through its Chief Manager, Bellari
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: G.B. Shastry, Advocate, Surabhi Kulkarni, Advocate. For the Respondent: Girish Hulmani, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 16-03-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC D 4190,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to (a) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to Quash the impugned order dated 28-01-2026 passed by The debt recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru in S.A. No.58/2026 only to the extent directing the petitioner Pay an amount of rs.3,40,27,764/- copy which is Produced at annexure a; (b) consequentially directing The debt recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru to consider The application dated 26-02-2026 filed by the Petitioner for modification and reduction of the Conditional deposit in accordance with law copy of Which is produced at annexure-e; (c) grant any such Other order/s as this hon’ble court deems it fit to Grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in The interest of justice.)

Oral Order:

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru in S.A.No.58/2026, only to the extent directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹3,40,27,764/- and declining to consider the application dated 26.02.2026 filed by the petitioner seeking modification and reduction of the conditional deposit.

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

3. The petitioner availed a loan from the respondent-bank and committed default in repayment. The respondent initiated recovery proceedings and an order was passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, followed by the issuance of a possession notice. The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing S.A. No.58 of 2026 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A. No.269 of 2026 seeking stay of the execution and operation of the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari in Criminal Miscellaneous No.267 of 2025 regarding the schedule property for recovery of ₹13,61,11,052.38 together with interest, costs and other charges. The Tribunal passed an order dated 28.01.2026 vide Annexure-A, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the claim amount within two months in two equal instalments.

4. The first instalment of ₹1,70,13,882/- was to be paid on or before 28.02.2026 and the second instalment of ₹1,70,13,882/- on or before 28.03.2026. It was further made clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with payment of any one of the instalments, the interim order would stand automatically vacated. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking modification of the order dated 28.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.269 of 2026. However, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declined to consider the application dated 26.02.2026. Hence, this petition.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit fixed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for payment of 25% of the due amount may be extended. He submits that the petitioner had filed an application seeking modification of the interim order. However, the Tribunal declined to consider the same. He further submits that if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner will comply with the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner himself had given an undertaking before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that he would deposit an amount of ₹3,40,27,764/-. However, the petitioner has failed to comply with the interim order. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be bona fide in filing an application seeking modification of the interim order. He further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed in the interim order, he has an efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Without exhausting the said efficacious remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent-bank and committed default in repayment. The respondent initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari in Criminal Miscellaneous No.267 of 2025. The said petition was allowed by the order dated 29.12.2025.

10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru by filing S.A.No.58 of 2026 and also filed an interim application in I.A.No.269 of 2026 seeking stay of the execution and operation of the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.267 of 2025. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an interim order dated 28.01.2026 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of ₹3,40,27,764/- in two equal instalments, the first instalment on or before 28.02.2026 and the second instalment on or before 28.03.2026. It was also made clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with payment of any one of the instalments, the interim order would stand automatically vacated, in which event the respondent would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed by the Tribunal. The petitioner, to show his bona fides, has not deposited any amount. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, he has an efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. However, the petitioner has not exhausted the said efficacious remedy.

12. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

 
  CDJLawJournal