SRI TANUJ SUD, ADVOCATE) v. BENGALURU - 560 001

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 64/1 PALACE ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 560 052 THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. DUSHYANT UMESH GANJAM (BY SRI KRISHNENDU DATTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANJUNATHA H., ADVOCATE A/W SRI TANUJ SUD, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND:

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICER AT POST BOX NO. 5467, 10/3/8 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37406-DB WA No. 1706 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010455342026 THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI -110 001

DEUTSCHE BANK A.G. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) RAHEJA TOWER, GROUND FLOOR 26-27, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 KARNATAKA

STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING, LHO CAMPUS 65 ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) LARGE CORPORATE BRNACH II NO. 204-207 2ND FLOOR MANIPAL CENTRE DICKENSON ROAD BENGALURU - 560 042

ICICI BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) NO. 4/10, MYTREE CENTRE HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 068 HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37406-DB WA No. 1706 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010455342026

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) NO.22, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (SRI THIMANNA BHAT, CGC FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI VIKARAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LAKSHMI K. VARADARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; SRI C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHURAM KADAMBI, ADVOCATE A/W SMT. DRISHTYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE IMPUGNED PRESENT WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 25/06/2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18122/2025 TITLED GANJAM NAGAPPA AND SON PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS TO AN EXTENT THAT THE HON'BLE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT ERRED IN HOLDING NON-PARTICIPATION OF A LENDER IN A MEETING DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, INVALIDATE THE RESOLUTION PROCESS NOR PREVENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DULY APPROVED RESOLUTION PLAN & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37406-DB WA No. 1706 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010455342026 Petition No.18122/2025 (GM-DRT). The appellant filed the said petition inter alia, seeking several reliefs. However, a plain reading of the said reliefs indicates that the appellant's primary relief is directed against the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act].

2. One of the grounds raised by the appellant is that the classification of its loan accounts as a Non-Performing Asset [NPA] is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India [RBI]. The appellant's challenge to the action under the SARFAESI Act is, inter alia, premised on the said basis.

3. Although all the lenders had individually initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the appellant's case is that they were required to jointly consider a rehabilitation proposal before initiating any such action.

4. The learned Single Judge examined the said issue and rejected it. HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37406-DB WA No. 1706 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010455342026

5. After some arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the parties state that the present appeal may be disposed of by reserving the right of the appellant to avail the statutory remedies, including on issue whether the proceedings under SARFAESI Act could be faulted on account of the alleged violations, if any, of the RBI Guidelines.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT] would be barred by limitation, the appellant would be entitled to claim condonation/exclusion of the time period in diligently pursuing the writ petition and the present appeal. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents disputes the same.

7. If and when the appellant avails its remedy, the question whether the said remedy is barred by limitation would arise for consideration of the concerned authority/tribunal.

In view of the above, we dispose of the present appeal by directing that the appellant would not be precluded from availing all its remedies. In the event the appellant avails of any remedy and HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37406-DB WA No. 1706 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010455342026 the same is considered on the merits, the concerned authority/tribunal shall do so without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order.

The present order is passed with the consent of the parties.

The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30