Karnataka High Court
M/S Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 18 February, 2026
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
WP No. 39030 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 39030 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S GULAM MUSTAFA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT
REP. BY ITS DIRECTORS,
MR. IMARAN ABED KHAN,
S/O LATE GULAM RASOOL,
AGED YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT
1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, NO.06,
GM PEARL, BTM LAYOUT,
BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONER
VANAMALA
N (BY SMT. SANDHYA U. PRABHU.,ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT
BRANCH, BENGALURU
HAVING OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,
OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING,
LHO CAMPUS, NO. 65,
ST. MARK'S ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
WP No. 39030 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. M/S RAYALASEEMA ENTERPRISES
HAVING OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 12,
WARD NO. 33, VINAYAK NAGAR,
HOSPET ROAD, BALLARI -583104
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
ORDER QUASHING THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK DATED 12/12/2025 BEARING NO.
SBI/SAMB/CLO-1/GMEPL/300/2025-26 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-J.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
WP No. 39030 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has availed financial assistance from the first respondent as against the security of nine Tippers [which are mentioned in the schedule appended in this petition]. The petitioner has impugned the Sale Notice dated 12.12.2025 [Annexure-J] published by the first respondent to recover its dues. The petition is predicated on two grievances viz., though the request for One Time Settlement is rejected the petitioner is keen to improve upon the offer already made and the first respondent has brought the vehicles to auction without indicating reserve price.
2. Sri Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the first respondent who was heard by this Court on 29.01.2026 on the petitioner's request for interim order to stay the proposed auction, has placed before this Court, amongst others, that the petitioner's loan account is declared 'NPA' in the year 2023, that the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9939 WP No. 39030 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner has defaulted in complying with the conditions stipulated by this Court in W.P.No.17030/2023 and therefore this Court has not continued the interim order but the writ petition is pending consideration. The learned counsel also emphasized that the first respondent had to really exert itself to secure the possession of the vehicles and the vehicles are notified for sale given the immense stress on the loans. This Court has permitted the sale to go on but observing that it shall be subject to further orders.
3. Sri Ashok Kumar now submits that the sale could not be held as there was no offer and that the first respondent proposes to re-auction the vehicles at the earliest. The learned counsel is also categorical that the reserve price was notified during the previous auction which is impugned in the present petition and that the first respondent, as is required, will also indicate the reserve price as and -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9939 WP No. 39030 of 2025 HC-KAR when the next sale notification is published. When queried, Ms.Sandhya U. Prabhu reiterates the petitioner's willingness to better the offer with Sri.Ashok Kumar asserting that any indulgence by this Court would only further distress the loan.
4. All these circumstances are considered. At the outset this Court must observe that this petition is rendered infructuous with the sale not being held pursuant to the impugned auction notice, and given the nature of the petitioner's objection and the first respondent's categorical stand that the auction will only be indicating the reserve price, there cannot be any shackle on the first respondent in issuing such notice. However, this Court must also ensure that there is no precipitation with protraction of litigation and hence some reasonable opportunity must be extended to the petitioner who is admittedly in default of loan repayment.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9939 WP No. 39030 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. This Court opines that the petitioner, given the lapse of time, must be diligent and make an offer with the first respondent at the earliest, and if such offer is made, the first respondent must consider and then decide on bringing the vehicles to sale. The timelines in this regard must be conservative inasmuch as the assets that are to be sold are vehicles which will depreciate in value over time. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition stands disposed of observing that the first respondent will be at liberty to re-notify the vehicles for sale as permissible in law, but reserving liberty to the petitioner to file [within a week from today] a revised One Time Settlement offer and stipulating that the first respondent shall communicate its decision to the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9939 WP No. 39030 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner within the next one [1] week and then proceed to notify the auction.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr