(BY SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

2. SRI. THAMMEGOWDA N PROP OF M/S NANJUNDESHWARA RICE MILL, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, INDAVALU VILLAGE, MANDYA - 571 251. (BY SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NO. 1751, "KALYANI" VIDYANAGARA, K R ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401. (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE HONBLE DRT-I, BENGALURU IN I.A.NO.1968/2024 IN S.A.NO.449/2024 ON 28.02.2025 ANNEXURE -A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "Wherefore, the petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to- (A) To quash / set aside the impugned orders passed by the Hon'ble DRT-I, Bengaluru in I.A.No.1968/2024 in S.A.No.449/2024 on 28.02.2025 ANNEXURE-'A'. (B) To condone the delay of 476 days, as pleaded in I.A.No.1968/2024 filed by the petitioner filed before the Hon'ble DRT-I, Bengaluru in SA.No.449/2024 and remind the matter to hear afresh on the merits of the case ANNEXURE - A1'. (C) To set aside/quash the Vacating Notice dated 08.08.2025 Ref.Rec / Nanjundeshwara / 2025-2026 ANNEXURE - 'G', including a consequential the measures relief, as invoked under SARFAESI Act, 2002 itself, is in contrary to the provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. (D) Grant such other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems facts and circumstance and on question of law, as stated Supra and in the interest of justice.” fit under the

2. The petitioners have availed the credit facility for an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs from the bank which was later enhanced to Rs.3.00 Crores and also availed UGECL Loan of Rs.30.00 Lakhs, totaling to Rs.3.30 Crores. In view of the - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR COVID-19, he could not service the loan account. The respondents have classified the account as "Non-performing Assets" on 26.10.2022 and it is stated that the respondent- bank alleged to have issued the Demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 31.10.2022 followed by the Possession notice dated 18.01.2023. Then the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.71/2023 dated 29.03.2023. Thereafter, the respondent-bank has issued a "Vacating notice" which was received by the petitioners on

28.08.2024 and immediately, he obtained the certified copy of the order passed by the CJM Court, Mandya and approached the DRT by filing S.A.No.449/2024. In the process, a delay of 476 days occurred. The DRT by order impugned has dismissed the IA that is filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 476 days that came to be dismissed by the DRT while dismissing the same. The Tribunal is required to allow the explanations offered by the petitioners/applicants and accept the same. The delay in the case reflects the inactivity and the inaction on the part of the applicant. The law does not permit one to sleep and to seek one's release as and when one - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR desires. When the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, the borrower cannot approach the Tribunal at their own leisure and pleasure. The law does not permit a really aggrieved person to sleep and approach Legal Forum as he desires. If he does so, it is at his risk and responsibility. The delay cannot be condoned keeping in mind the above object of Act. The Tribunal has felt that the petitioners have not shown any reason for the delay and the same cannot be condoned, in the absence of any valid explanation. Accordingly, the Tribunal had dismissed the IA that is filed to condone the delay of 476 days.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that once the Vacating notice is issued, immediately they have approached the Court. They have obtained the certified copy of the same and they have filed the IA. The petitioner is not aware of the proceedings under Section 14 as there is no participation of the borrower in Section 14 proceedings. It is submitted that the Court without considering the reasons that are stated, in the mechanical manner has - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR dismissed the application. Unless the delay is condoned, the petitioners would be put to great hardship.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that as the petitioners have failed to give the reasons for the said delay, Court had rightly dismissed the I.A. that is filed to condone the delay. It is submitted that when an order is passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the remedy available to the petitioners is to go before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. But they cannot come before this Court. It is submitted that there are no informities in the order passed by the Tribunal and no interference is called for.

5. In response to that, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though he has a remedy to go before the DRAT, He has come before this Court on a question of law, as whether the delay can be condoned by the DRAT or not. The said question of law can only be decided by this Court.

6. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner has approached the DRT with a delay of 476 days. According to him, when he has - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR received a Vacating Notice, he has immediately obtained the necessary papers and rushed to the DRT. The admitted facts in this case are, the account was declared as NPA on 26.10.2022 and notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAECI Act was issued on 31.10.2022, Possession notice was on 18.01.2023 and an order was passed by the Magistrate on 29.03.2023. It is also undisputed fact pursuant to the order under Section 14, when they have issued Auction Notification and the auction is scheduled to be held on 27.07.2023, the same was questioned by the petitioners. When the petitioners have questioned the said Auction Notice, which is scheduled to be held on

27.07.2023, by that time, it is a fact that unless the order under Section 14 is passed, the auction will not be held by the Bank. Petitioners with the legal help they have questioned the auction. Then it has to be construed that, the petitioners had notice of Section 14 order as long as back on 27.07.2023 but the appeal is filed on 02.09.2024. That clearly shows that the petitioners were not diligent in pursuing the matter and has not even stated the correct facts, why the delay has occurred and it is argued that they came to know only about Section 14 order when a Vacating Notice is issued and this Court do not find any - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5918 WP No. 26197 of 2025 HC-KAR reasons to condone the delay. The Tribunal has rightly considered and rightly passed an order. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13