M/S. POWER SYSTEMS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED v. M/S. BANK OF BARODA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J P NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. ARUN KUMAR. M, S/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PARTNER M/S. POWER SYSTEMS, AT NO.86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
MRS. KALPANA S., W/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PARTNER M/S. POWER SYSTEMS, AT NO.86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
MRS. ANUSHA. M, D/O. LATE MALLIKARJUNE GOWDA, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1324 WP No. 30235 of 2025 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, AT NO.86, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. (BY SRI. PRADEEP K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS M/S. BANK OF BARODA, SOUTH END ROAD BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, NO.16/1, BASAVANAGUDI SOUTH END ROAD, BENGALURU-560004. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER. (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE (CP.NO.21324/2025)) FOR C/R …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.08.2025 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE 30TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 4680/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1324 WP No. 30235 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased: i. To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2025, passed by the Hon’ble 30th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.4680/2025 as per Annexure “B” in respect of the petitioners concerned. Bengaluru ii. To issue such other writ, direction or order as this Hon’ble Court deem proper in the circumstances of the case. iii. To award to the petitioners, the costs of this petition.”
2. There is no representation on behalf of petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/bank submits that questioning the order passed in Crl. Misc. No.4680/2025 dated
21.08.2025 by the XXX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru, the petitioners have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal that is numbered as Diary No.3311/2025. It is submitted that in that an interim order was granted on
05.12.2025 to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on or before 30.12.2025. Challenging the said order of the DRT, the - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1324 WP No. 30235 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioners have filed W.P.No.246/2026 before this Court. It is further submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of on
08.01.2026 and the Court had granted a weeks’ time to comply with the interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Operative part
4. Having heard learned counsel respondent/bank, perused the material on record. In the light of the fact that already the order passed by the Magistrate is questioned before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Tribunal had also passed an order. Hence, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous giving liberty to the petitioners to pursue the matter pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
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.