[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Gramin Bank vs M.V. Venkatesh on 17 February, 2026

                                         -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:9622
                                                    WP No. 31731 of 2024


              HC-KAR




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                       BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 31731 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

              BETWEEN:

                  KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK
                  KANAKAPURA BRANCH,
                  RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSET RECOVERY
                  MANAGEMENT BRANCH
                  NO.6, SAI PRIYA, 17TH MAIN ROAD
                  MUNESHWARA BLOCK
Digitally         SRI NAAGAR, BANGALORE - 560026
signed by
SHILPABAI S       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA         PAN No.AAGAK4198N
                  [email protected] & also [email protected]
                  CELL NO.8329426702
                  IFSC CODE: PKGB0012194
                                                            ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. M.V.VENKATESH., ADV.)
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:9622
                                   WP No. 31731 of 2024


HC-KAR




AND:

   M.V. VENKATESH
   S/O LATE M Y VENKATE GOWDA
   MALLIGEMETLU VILLAGE AND POST
   MARALAVADI HOBLI
   KANAKAPURA TALUK
   RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562121



                                         ...RESPONDENT


(BY SRI. G.LOKESH MURTHY, ADV. )



       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 1083/2024 IN MA

18/2024 27.09.2024 PASSED IN HONBLE DRT-2 BENGALURU

AS ANNX-B, QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 28.12.2019 PASSED

BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II IN OA NO. 36/2019

ANNX-A, AND ETC.,




       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                      -3-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:9622
                                               WP No. 31731 of 2024


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI


                            ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the

following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order passed in IA 1083/2024 in MA 18/2024 dated 27.09.2024 passed in Hon'ble DRT-2 Bengaluru as Annexure-B.

2. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Debt's Recovery Tribunal II in OA No.36/2019 Annexure-A.

3. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ

petition are as follows:

The father of the petitioner sought for financial

assistance from the bank for agricultural cash credit and

agricultural term loan. The respondent-Bank sanctioned

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

the loan of Rs.75,000/-, additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/-

and Rs.1,10,000/- vide sanction letters dated 05.09.2008,

14.06.2009 and 23.09.2009. The father of the petitioner

has mortgaged the property in question and executed

three simple mortgage deed. The respondent claims that

they have issued a notice to the petitioner, which was

denied by the petitioner. The respondent approached the

DRT and filed the OA against the petitioner. The Debt

Recovery Tribunal passed an order on 28.12.2019 in OA

No.36/2019. The said order is an ex-parte order. The

respondent after passing an order by the Debt Recovery

Tribunal, respondent No.2 issued a proclamation of sale

cum e-auction under Rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule to

Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Recovery of Debts

and Bankruptcy, 1993 and got issued a paper publication

in New Indian Express dated 16.03.2024. The petitioner,

aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts Recovery

Tribunal in I.A.No.1083/2024 in M.A.No.18/2014 vide

Annexure-B, has filed this writ petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the

respondent-Bank.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected I.A. i.e., for

condonation of delay on the ground that the provisions of

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of

1963') is not applicable to the proceedings initiated under

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short

'the SARFAESI Act'). He submits that the order passed by

the Debt Recovery Tribunal, is contrary to the judgment

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

SMT. V.SHOBHA VS. M/S. ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION BANK

COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS in

W.P.NO.12800/2015, disposed off on 16.09.2025,

wherein the Division Bench has held that the provisions of

Section 5 of Act of 1963 applies to the SARFAESI

proceedings. He submits that the impugned order passed

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

by the tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these

grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause

for filing miscellaneous application at a related stage. The

tribunal was justified in rejecting the application in IA.No.

1083/2024 on the ground that the appeal filed by the

petitioner is barred by limitation. He submits that the writ

petition may be dismissed.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's

father availed a loan from the respondent-Bank and

executed three simple mortgage deed. The father of the

petitioner committed a default and the respondent-Bank

initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act

and filed OA.No.36/2019, which was allowed vide order

dated 28.12.2019. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

passed in OA.No.36/2019, preferred an appeal before the

Debt Recovery Tribunal-II and filed appeal in

MA.No.18/2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,

Karnataka, Bengaluru challenging the order passed in

OA.No.36/2019 on the ground that it is an ex-parte order.

Along with an appeal, the petitioner filed application

IA.No.1083/2024 for condonation of delay 1,602 days in

filing the miscellaneous appeal. It is contended that

though the notice was served on the petitioner, the

petitioner was not aware about the order passed in

OA.No.36/2019. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has rejected

the application on the ground that the petitioner has not

explained each days delay. Admittedly, the petitioner

himself contended that no notice was served. The

application involves the right to recovery of money, if a

reasonable opportunity is granted to the petitioner to

challenge the order passed in OA.No.36/2019, the

respondent can be compensated. No injustice would be

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

caused to the respondent and the respondent can be

compensated in terms of money.

8. In view of the proposition of law laid down by

the Division Bench of this Court in case of V.SHOBHA

(Supra), wherein the Division Bench held in para Nos.20,

21, 22 and 23, reads as follows:

20. The Tribunal for the purposes of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is defined under Section 2(1)(i) which is as follows:

"2(1)(i) "Debts Recovery Tribunal" means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993."

21. Insofar as the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 24 of the Act provides as follows:

"24. Limitation.- The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal."

22. Therefore, a reading of Section 24 of the Act, 1993 makes it beyond doubt that the Tribunal has the powers of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 not only in respect of an

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

application filed under the Act of 1993 but also in respect of an application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have an over riding effect over all other laws which are inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the Act per se does not mandate that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

23. Therefore, it can be concluded that the DRT also has power to condone the delay by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1993.

9. The Division Bench has concluded that the Debt

Recovery Tribunal has also covered the delay by virtue of

Section 24 of the Act of 1993 and has a right to condone

the delay under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and

Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Considering the

proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench, the

Tribunal committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.1083/

2024. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is

contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in case of V.SHOBHA (Supra). Hence,

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9622

HC-KAR

on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.


         ii.    The order passed on IA.No.1083/2024 in
                MA.No.     18/2024          passed   by   the   Debt
                Recovery           Tribunal-II,           Karnataka,

Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A is set aside. Accordingly, IA.No.1083/2024 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000 payable by the petitioner to the bank within one month from today, failing which, the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of this order.