Sachin vs Chief Manager And Authorised Officer on 21 January, 2026

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:382
                                                     WP No. 200342 of 2026


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                         WRIT PETITION NO.200342 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SACHIN S/O BALAKRISHNA BASUTKAR,
                   AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                   R SHRUTI TOWER BASAWESHWAR CHOWK,
                   NEAR PETROL PUMP, SHAHAPUR
                   DIST. YADGIR-585223.

                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
                        BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,
                        ARMB HUBBALI, CTS NO.122/108
Digitally signed
by RENUKA               P. B. NO.499, KARNATAK BANK BUILDING
Location: HIGH          3RD FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET,
COURT OF                HUBBALI-580029.
KARNATAKA               E-MAIL:[email protected].

                   2.   CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
                        BANK OF MAHARSTRA, HUBALI ZONE
                        GULBARGA BRANCH AT GAZIPUR,
                        OPPOSITE CITY CENTER, GULBARGA-585101.

                                                           ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI. ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE R1 & R2)
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:382
                                      WP No. 200342 of 2026


 HC-KAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE SALE NOTICE DATED 18.12.2025
BEARING NO.AX83/ SARFAESI/ SALE NOTICE/ 2025-26
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-F, B)
QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 17.10.2025 AS
ILLEGAL   AND    VIOD,   BEARING    NO.AX83/SARFAESI/
POSSESSION NOTICE/ 48/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2 C) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENT FROM PROCEEDING WITH
THE AUCTION SCHEDULED ON 27.01.2026 D) DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO RECALCULATE DUES AFTER ADJUSTING ALL
PAYMENTS AND REMOVING ILLEGAL CHARGES E) GRANT
LIBERTY TO REGULARIZE OR RESTRUCTURE THE LOAN
ACCOUNT.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                        ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/borrower seeking

following reliefs:

"A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Sale Notice dated 18.12.2025 bearing No.AX83/ SARFAESI/ Sale Notice/ 2025-26 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F,

B) Quash the Possession Notice dated 17.10.2025 as illegal and viod, bearing no.AX83/SARFAESI/ Possession Notice/ 48/2025-26 vide Annexure-E passed by respondent No.2,

C) Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from proceeding with the auction scheduled on 27.01.2026,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:382

HC-KAR

D) direct the respondent to recalculate dues after adjusting all payments and removing illegal charges,

E) Grant liberty to regularize or restructure the loan account"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

is ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount due to the

bank, if the bank is willing to accept the same and ready for

one time settlement, as petitioner shows an intent of making

good the payment of the outstanding amount. Therefore, he

seeks leave of this Court to direct the respondent bank to

consider his representation of one time settlement, as he

intends to clear the loan, if reasonable time is granted.

3. Per contra, Sri Ananth S Jahagirdar, learned

counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the

petitioner has not approached the bank well within time,

despite being granted sufficient time for settling the

outstanding amount due. He also relies upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phoenix Arc Private

Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharathi Vidya Mandir and Others1.

(2022) 5 SCC 345

NC: 2026:KHC-K:382

HC-KAR

Paragraph No.21 of the said order is relied upon and the same

is extracted hereunder:

"21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C.7 to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs. 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its

NC: 2026:KHC-K:382

HC-KAR

discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed."

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Phoenix Arc Private Ltd. (supra) has clearly laid down as

to how the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India filed by the borrower is an abuse of the process of Court

and such petitions should not be entertained, when there is a

statutory remedy available, which is efficacious and alternative

remedy to invoke the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI

Act. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that present

petition filed against the respondent bank by the borrower,

admittedly where outstanding amount is due, would not be