Karnataka High Court
Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Sreenivasa Enterprises on 13 May, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
W.A. No.741/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.741 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT INDIAN RAYON COMPOUND
VERAVAL, GUJARAT 362 266
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
Digitally signed MR. AKASH NA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
by DEVIKA M HAVING HIS OFFICES AT ADITYA
Location: HIGH BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED, NO.1/78
COURT OF STAR AVENUE, 6TH CROSS
KARNATAKA SRI. THYAGI M. PALANIVELU RD
VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 025.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. AHAAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.40
LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560 027
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
W.A. No.741/2025
REPRESENTED BY MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR.
2. BODY SCULPT HEALTH CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT 40/1
2ND FLOOR, CENTURY CORBEL
SAHAKARANAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 092
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR.
3. ARIA BREW AND DINE PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT 40/1
CENTURY CORBEL COMMERCIAL
SAHAKARANAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 092
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR.
4. MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF KONENAHALLI REDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.824, 24 MAIN ROAD
OPP. BATA SHOWROOM, J.P. NAGAR
2ND PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560 078.
5. MS. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K.R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.824, 24 MAIN ROAD
OPP. BATA SHOWROOM, J.P. NAGAR
2ND PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560078.
6. MR. AMIT RAVISHANKAR GOWDA
S/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT. No.824, 24TH MAIN ROAD
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
W.A. No.741/2025
OPP. BATA SHOWROOM
J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE
BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE
KARNATAKA-560078.
7. MR. ADIT R. GOWDA
S/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT. No.40, LALBAGH ROAD
URVASHI THEATRE
BANGALORE SOUTH
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE
KARNATAKA-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VACHAN H.U. ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02/05/2025 IN WP
NO.11951/2025 AND GRANT SUCH FURTHER AND OTHER
RELIEF'S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is filed against the order of the Single
Judge wherein this court in W.P.No.11951/2025 having
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
taken note of the submission made by the petitioner's
counsel that going to make the payment of Rs.75,00,000/-
to the Bank by way of demand draft and would undertake
to pay Rs.50,00,000/- each at different intervals in the
month of June or July as the case would be in the light of
the talks of settlement between the parties in all 11
occasions being undertaken and though it comes to the
conclusion deemed it appropriate to grant one last stop
opportunity to the petitioner to clear the loan amount, now
notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the learned
Senior counsel for the respondent and directed to pay an
amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and also file an affidavit of
timeline of clearance of the loan amount of
Rs.22,00,00,000/-, by the next date of hearing, this order
has been challenged before this court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the very appellant is a private
concern and even Writ Petition is not maintainable and the
Counsel would submits that the proceedings is initiated
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
under the SARFAESI Act and the respondent can avail the
remedy under Section 17 of the Act and the Counsel would
submit that the single bench committed an error in only
directing to make the payment of Rs.75,00,000/- as
against the amount of Rs.22,00,00,000/- and counsel also
would submits that let the action be go on and if the
respondent makes any arrangements of clearing the loan
amount or making any payment of 50% amount in the
first week of June-2025, going to consider the same and
not going to confirm the sale and if such effort is made,
the same will be considered.
3. Per contra, the counsel of appearing to the
respondent also would submit that earlier also several
meetings were held and an attempt was made and not
having that much of amount to clear the same. The
counsel would submit that let the appellant go on with sale
and not to confirm the sale and going to make efforts to
make the substantial payment if two weeks time is
granted.
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
4. Having considered the respective submissions
of the appellant's counsel as well as counsel for the
respondent and also having considered the material on
record the claim of the appellant is Rs.22,00,00,000/- and
the Single Bench Judge gave an opportunity to the
respondent to make the payment of only Rs.75,00,000/-
as against the amount of Rs.22,00,00,000/-. When such
being the case and the same is nothing but a peanut and
as contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant
that it is only a 4% as against the claim of the appellant
and hence such order cannot be sustained in the eye of
law, however, taking into note of submission of appellant's
counsel as well as counsel for the respondent, even if any
sale takes place, since already proceedings has been
initiated to conduct the sale and in view of the submission
of the appellant also, they are not going to confirm the
sale, if any substantial payment is made within two weeks
from today not less than 50%, the liberty is given to the
respondent to make such payment and the appellant
cannot wait for clearance of the amount for longer period,
NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB
let him make the substantial payment of 50% within two
weeks and seek for another additional two months for
remaining payment, if no such payment is made, the
appellant is given liberty to proceed in accordance with
law. With this observation Writ Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
RHS
