BENGALURU-560 078 v. SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
1. SRI. ARUN KUMAR. M S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNEGOWDA MB, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO. 86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078
2. SMT. KALAPANA S, W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO. 86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RUSHAB GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND:
BANK OF BARODA SOUTH ENDD ROAD BRANCH NO.D16/1 GROUND FLOOR, BASAVANGUDI SOUTH END ROAD, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1213 WP No. 246 of 2026 HC-KAR BENGALURU- 560 004 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
M/S POWER SYSTEM, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT REP. BY ITS PARTNER, NO.86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARTS LAYOUT JP NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU, 560078
SRI.ANIL GOWDA, W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE,
SMT.BYRAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE,
MISS. KUSUMA, D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA. MAJOR BY AGE,
SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN, MAJOR BY AGE, RESPONDENT Nos. 3 TO 6 ARE R/O NO.703, MARUTHI NILAYA, OPP. TO AMBEDKAR COLLEGE, KENGUNTE, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 056
MISS. ANUSHA M. D/O LATE MALLIKARJUNE GOWDA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O NO.86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, JP NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078 (BY MISS PREETHU R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1213 WP No. 246 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 05.12.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II IN CASE No.O.NO.3311/2025 BENGALURU AS PER ANNX-B HOLDING THE SAME AS EXORBITANT. DIRECT THE R-1 BANK NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONERS FROM THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 05.12.2025 vide Annexure-B, wherein the petitioner has undertaken to deposit the amount of Rs.1 crore with the respondent Bank on or before 30.12.2025.
2. As the petitioner could not pay the amount of Rs.1 crore before 30.12.2025, the petitioner to show his bonafide furnished 3 demand drafts Rs.25 lakhs today.
3. The respondent Bank is directed to accept the same. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1213 WP No. 246 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed approach the tribunal to seek extension of time for the payment of amount in due.
Operative part
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
6. A liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an application for the extension of time within two weeks from today, failing which, the petitioner will not be entitled for any benefit.
7. The respondent Bank is directed not precipitate the matter for a period of two weeks from today. SKS CT:KHV Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.