[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9939
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
