Karnataka Gramin Bank Kanakapura Branch, Ramanagara District V. M.V. Venkatesh

WP/31731/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Karnataka Gramin Bank, Kanakapura Branch, as the petitioner, and M.V. Venkatesh, the respondent, concerning a dispute over loans taken by the respondent's father, which were secured by mortgaged property. The bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, leading to an ex-parte order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner challenged this order, claiming lack of proper notice and seeking condonation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal's rejection of the delay application was contested, leading to this writ petition. The High Court's decision emphasized the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to SARFAESI proceedings, contrary to the Tribunal's earlier stance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839379 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: SMT. V.SHOBHA VS. M/S. ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION BANK COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, SARFAESI Act, Limitation Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G LOKESH MURTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: M V VENKATESH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Debt Recovery; Ex parte order; SARFAESI Act; Writ petition
• Section: 5; 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 31731 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK KANAKAPURA BRANCH, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH NO.6, SAI PRIYA, 17TH MAIN ROAD MUNESHWARA BLOCK SRI NAAGAR, BANGALORE - 560026 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER PAN No.AAGAK4198N [e-mail] & also [e-mail] CELL NO.8329426702 IFSC CODE: PKGB0012194 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V.VENKATESH., ADV.) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 AND: M.V. VENKATESH S/O LATE M Y VENKATE GOWDA MALLIGEMETLU VILLAGE AND POST MARALAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562121 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.LOKESH MURTHY, ADV. ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 1083/2024 IN MA 18/2024 27.09.2024 PASSED IN HONBLE DRT-2 BENGALURU AS ANNX-B, QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 28.12.2019 PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II IN OA NO. 36/2019 ANNX-A, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order passed in IA 1083/2024 in MA 18/2024 dated 27.09.2024 passed in Hon’ble DRT-2 Bengaluru as Annexure-B. 2. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Debt’s Recovery Tribunal II in OA No.36/2019 Annexure-A. 3. Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The father of the petitioner sought for financial assistance from the bank for agricultural cash credit and agricultural term loan. The respondent-Bank sanctioned Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 the loan of Rs.75,000/-, additional loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.1,10,000/- vide sanction letters dated 05.09.2008, 14.06.2009 and 23.09.2009. The father of the petitioner has mortgaged the property in question and executed three simple mortgage deed. The respondent claims that they have issued a notice to the petitioner, which was denied by the petitioner. The respondent approached the DRT and filed the OA against the petitioner. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an order on 28.12.2019 in OA No.36/2019. The said order is an ex-parte order. The respondent after passing an order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, respondent No.2 issued a proclamation of sale cum e-auction under Rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy, 1993 and got issued a paper publication in New Indian Express dated 16.03.2024. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.1083/2024 in M.A.No.18/2014 vide Annexure-B, has filed this writ petition. Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected I.A. i.e., for condonation of delay on the ground that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’) is not applicable to the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). He submits that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, is contrary to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. V.SHOBHA VS. M/S. ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION BANK COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS in W.P.NO.12800/2015, disposed off on 16.09.2025, wherein the Division Bench has held that the provisions of Section 5 of Act of 1963 applies to the SARFAESI proceedings. He submits that the impugned order passed Printed from counselvise.com - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 by the tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for filing miscellaneous application at a related stage. The tribunal was justified in rejecting the application in IA.No. 1083/2024 on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. He submits that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's father availed a loan from the respondent-Bank and executed three simple mortgage deed. The father of the petitioner committed a default and the respondent-Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and filed OA.No.36/2019, which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.2019. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order Printed from counselvise.com - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 passed in OA.No.36/2019, preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II and filed appeal in MA.No.18/2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Karnataka, Bengaluru challenging the order passed in OA.No.36/2019 on the ground that it is an ex-parte order. Along with an appeal, the petitioner filed application IA.No.1083/2024 for condonation of delay 1,602 days in filing the miscellaneous appeal. It is contended that though the notice was served on the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware about the order passed in OA.No.36/2019. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not explained each days delay. Admittedly, the petitioner himself contended that no notice was served. The application involves the right to recovery of money, if a reasonable opportunity is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in OA.No.36/2019, the respondent can be compensated. No injustice would be Printed from counselvise.com - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 caused to the respondent and the respondent can be compensated in terms of money. 8. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of V.SHOBHA (Supra), wherein the Division Bench held in para Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23, reads as follows: 20. The Tribunal for the purposes of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is defined under Section 2(1)(i) which is as follows: \"2(1)(i) \"Debts Recovery Tribunal\" means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.\" 21. Insofar as the powers of the Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 24 of the Act provides as follows: \"24. Limitation.- The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal.\" 22. Therefore, a reading of Section 24 of the Act, 1993 makes it beyond doubt that the Tribunal has the powers of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 not only in respect of an Printed from counselvise.com - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 application filed under the Act of 1993 but also in respect of an application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have an over riding effect over all other laws which are inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the Act per se does not mandate that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 23. Therefore, it can be concluded that the DRT also has power to condone the delay by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1993. 9. The Division Bench has concluded that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has also covered the delay by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1993 and has a right to condone the delay under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench, the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.1083/ 2024. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of V.SHOBHA (Supra). Hence, Printed from counselvise.com - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9622 WP No. 31731 of 2024 on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order passed on IA.No.1083/2024 in MA.No. 18/2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Karnataka, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A is set aside. Accordingly, IA.No.1083/2024 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000 payable by the petitioner to the bank within one month from today, failing which, the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of this order. iii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB Printed from counselvise.com "