UNION BANK OF INDIA v. TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT

SRI. M.C. KUMARSWAMY S/O SRI. M.P.CHANDRAIAH DIRECTOR M/S. MAYA HOTELS PVT. LTD., NO.52/1, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560 001.

SMT. THIRTA KUMARSWAMY W/O M.C.KUMARSWAMY DIRECTOR M/S. MAYA HOTELS PVT. LTD., NO.52/1, CHRUCH STREET BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SRI. S. VENKATESHWARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 ANNEX-A, CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO DELIVER THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14885 WP No. 36592 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “ WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be please to: i) Quash/set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his order dated

15.10.2025 (Annexure-A). In OA.No.62/08 before recovery officer DRT-II. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondents to hand over the physical possession of the schedule property to the petitioner as sought in the application filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent U/S. 22(h) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Read with Rule 39 Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962 vide (Annexure-V). iii) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner before this Court is Union Bank of India. The facts of the case are the respondent No.2 to 4 had approached the Bank and availed credit facility by mortgaging - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14885 WP No. 36592 of 2025 HC-KAR the property. As loan account of the respondent has become NPA on 15.04.2006, an application came to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 in OA No.62/2008, the said application was allowed on 16.06.2009. The recovery certificate came to be issued and in terms of the recovery certificate, the scheduled property came to be attached and the property was put for sale on 14 occasions and there was no prospective purchaser/s to purchase the scheduled property. The 1st respondent on 20.04.2014 had issued a proclamation for sale and the auction was held on

30.05.2014. The petitioner after obtaining necessary permission from the Tribunal had participated in the auction sale and declared as a highest bidder and the sale held on

30.05.2014. In the interregnum, various proceedings were initiated by the Borrower. The Borrower had O.S.No.26636/2022 on the file of City Civil Judge at Bangalore against 1st respondent and the petitioner seeking permanent injunction. It is submitted that initially the suit was filed by the Borrower against the third party and the Court has granted - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14885 WP No. 36592 of 2025 HC-KAR injunction. Thereafter, the Bank as well as the recovery officer were made parties to the suit.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Bank that without any basis, the recovery officer has passed an order dated 15.10.2025 observing that a suit i.e., O.S.No.26636/2022, an ex-parte temporary injunction was granted and the same order is extended and continued till date. Suit is pending and injunction is in force and the matter is adjourned for further clarification of the order pertaining to O.S.No.26636/2022. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when there is no injunction against either the Bank or the recovery officer, the order passed by the 1st respondent is without any basis. It is submitted that mere pendency of the suit cannot be the ground for the 1st respondent to adjourn the matter. Hence, order dated

15.10.2025 is liable to be set-aside.

4. The counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the officer is under the impression that as he is also a party to the proceedings, as there is an order of - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14885 WP No. 36592 of 2025 HC-KAR injunction, with due respect to the orders of the Court, he could not proceed with the matter.

The counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that as there is an order of injunction subsisting, the 1st respondent has rightly differed with the matter.

Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides, This Court has perused the injunction order that is passed by the Court. In the said order, as on the day, the parties are the petitioner, the borrower and another party and subsequently the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein are impleaded. There is no injunction by the Civil Court against the 1st respondent and the petitioner. In those circumstances, the 1st respondent need not wait for the outcome of the suit or he should be concerned about interim order of injunction passed by the Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER

The order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the 1st respondent is set-aside. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14885 WP No. 36592 of 2025 HC-KAR

2. The 1st respondent shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

3. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.