SRI. K.S. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY D., ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B M SHYAM PRASAD
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:35657
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of with
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. These submissions enable an equitable disposal of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to tender the amounts due within a reasonable period. However, this Court must observe that if there is a default by the petitioners in tendering the amount to the respondent's…
Judgment
SMT. SHWETHA P W/O. M.S. VARADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. R/AT MAKALI VILLAGE, NEAR WATER TANK, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
SRI. M.S. VARADEGOWDA, S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MAKALI VILLAGE, NEAR WATER TANK, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
SRI. NAGENDRA T., S/O. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1878-1, MANGALAVARAPET, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35657 WP No. 25296 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: M/S. NIVARA HOME FINANCE LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.22, 23, 24, 25/101/3, 3RD FLOOR, BNR COMPLEX, SRI RAMA LAYOUT, OPP. RBI LAYOUT, 7TH PHASE J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THE MANAGER, PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT SRI. RAHUL RAJE URS S/O. P. BASAVARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY D., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2025 IN CRL. MISC. NO.20/2025 PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., RAMANAGARA, VIDE ANNEXURE-K, TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35657 WP No. 25296 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The short question for consideration in the present petition is whether this Court must intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the respondent’s decision to proceed against the petitioners’ property [the secured asset] under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") despite the repeated caution in exercising such jurisdiction.
2. The petitioners have defaulted in repaying the home loan, and the respondent has taken possession of the property by sealing after the orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Smt. Vaibhavi Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners propose to contest the proceedings on the ground that these are started without due notice, they would, without prejudice, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35657 WP No. 25296 of 2025 HC-KAR seek a reasonable opportunity to settle the dues and take possession.
3. Sri. D. Narayana Swamy, the learned counsel who is on record for the respondent, submits that even after discounting all the amounts that are paid by the petitioners they would be due in a sum of Rs.10,16,581/- as on 08.09.2025 apart from the legal costs, and that if the petitioners are willing to tender these amounts without delay and default, this Court could dispose of the petition with just liberty and observations.
In rejoinder, Smt. Vaibhavi Bhat submits that the petitioners would request for a minimum of six months, and also leave to take their belongings in the property which is under seal so that they could pledge the jewellery and other valuables to raise the amount that should be settled, and in response Sri. D. Narayanaswamy submits that even - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35657 WP No. 25296 of 2025 HC-KAR otherwise, respondent will act upon a representation to take the belongings.
Operative part
These submissions enable an equitable disposal of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to tender the amounts due within a reasonable period. However, this Court must observe that if there is a default by the petitioners in tendering the amount to the respondent's satisfaction within the time now allowed, the respondent should be at liberty to proceed further in terms of the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, but without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke the alternate remedy under the aforesaid Act. The petitioners must also be reserved with liberty to make a representation with the respondent for permission to take their movables/valuables but calling upon the respondent to consider the same in the light of the stand that is taken above. In the light of the afore, the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35657 WP No. 25296 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER The petition stands disposed of with liberty the petitioners Rs.10,16,581/- with legal costs and further interest by 31.10.2025 directing respondent not to take any precipitative action until then and subject to the liberty and observations as aforesaid. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
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.