(BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) v. BENGALURU- 560 009
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Considering the fact that the writ petition is filed questioning the sale notice dated 15.10.2025 and as per the instructions the said notice itself is withdrawn, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. ii.…
Judgment
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 574/1/31-C, SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU- 560097
SRI.VENKATESH S.N., S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 574/1/31-C, SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU- 560097 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46071 WP No. 33594 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: BANK OF INDIA REPTD., BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, BENGALURU ZONE NO.-11, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.MOHAMED IBRAHIM, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE E- AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2025 BEARING NO. BZO/ARD/SALE NOTICE 2025-26/RA/44 ISSUED BY THE R1 (ANNEXURE-C) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46071 WP No. 33594 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully pray this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any of the other appropriate writ, Order quashing the E- Auction Sale Notice dated 15.10.2025 bearing No.BZO/ARD/Sale Notice-2025- 26/RA/44 issued by the 1st respondent (Annexure-C) as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and also in violation of principles of natural justice. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction directing the respondent to grant all the consequential benefits consequent upon quashing the orders at Annexure-C.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank submits that the writ petition is filed questioning the sale notice dated 15.10.2025 and as per his instructions the sale notice - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46071 WP No. 33594 of 2025 HC-KAR dated 15.10.2025 is withdrawn by the respondent/bank. Hence, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.
Operative part
Considering the fact that the writ petition is filed questioning the sale notice dated 15.10.2025 and as per the instructions the said notice itself is withdrawn, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All I.As. in the writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 15 Oct 2025. The bench was LALITHA KANNEGANTI.
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.