Karnataka High Court
Edventure Software Pvt Ltd vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 20 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32431
WP No. 9326 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 9326 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
EDVENTURE SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.311/7, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SMT. V G SATHYA PREMA
W/O SRI. R. PRAKASH
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. AVINASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.,
NO.22, 2ND FLOOR,
Digitally M.G.ROAD,
signed by BANGALORE-560001
SUMA
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
HIGH MR. MURALI M.R.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.08.2025.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE 3RD ACMM, BANGALORE DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED
IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.7059/2016 AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32431
WP No. 9326 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.09.2016
passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru in Cr.Misc.No.7059/2016, whereby a petition filed
under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(henceforth referred to as 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') was allowed.
It has also sought to quash the sale notice dated 05.08.2020
issued by the respondent under Rules 8 and 9 of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (henceforth referred to as
'Rules, 2002').
2. It appears that the petitioner had raised a loan from
the respondent - Bank and fell due. The secured assets were
proceeded against by the respondent - Bank and possession of
the property was taken over under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 and proceedings under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules,
2002, are taken out, which are challenged in this writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:32431
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner cannot assail these proceedings in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United
Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others [AIR
2010 SC 34] as well as the judgment of Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Smt. Vimala Bhushan vs. The Authorised
Officer, YES Bank Limited, Mumbai and others [ILR 2019
KAR 2520].
4. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed as
not maintainable. It is however open for the petitioner to
challenge the impugned order before the Tribunal in accordance
with law.
5. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be
deducted while calculating limitation applicable to proceedings
before the Tribunal.
6. If the petitioner has deposited any amount pursuant
to any order passed by this Court, the same shall be taken into
consideration by the Tribunal while considering the interim
reliefs sought for by the petitioner in such proceedings.
NC: 2025:KHC:32431
HC-KAR
7. The respondents are directed not to take any
precipitative action against the secured assets for a period of
fifteen days from today so as to enable the petitioner to
approach the Tribunal.
8. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending
I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same
stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
