M/S. METALEX STEEL STRIPS PRIVATE LTD., vs THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ASST GENERAL MANAGER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2286 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
M/S. METALEX STEEL STRIPS PRIVATE LTD.,
(A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY),
PLOT NO.158-159(P),
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BOMMASANDRA JIGNI LINK ROAD,
BENGALURU – 562 106
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. VIKAS BHANDARI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER &
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
BENGALURU CITY BRANCH,
VOKKALIGARA SANGHA BUILDING,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
2. SRI. JEETENDRA GANDHI,
S/O. LATE K.L. GANDHI,
PROP. M/S. GANDHI IRON AND STEEL,
NO.44/1, NEW GANGAMMACHARI STREET,
MOTINAGAR, CITY MARKET,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 25.08.2026
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.25807/2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.25807/2024 FILED
BY THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER; SUCH MAY BE DONE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)
1. The appellant, M/s. Metalex Steel Stripes Private Limited
[ the appellant ], who was the petitioner in W.P.No.25807/2024
[GM- DRT], has preferred this intra-court appeal assailing the order
dated 25.08.2026 [ the impugned order ] passed by the learned
Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came
to be dismissed.
2. The appellant filed the aforesaid petition seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the Punjab National Bank [ respondent No.1-
Bank ] to refund a sum of ` 1,41,11,480/- towards the auction sale
consideration and other incidental expenses, together with interest
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
at the rate of 12% per annum from 29.08.2016, and to ensure
cancellation of the sale certificate dated 29.08.2016.
Prefatory facts
3. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in
industrial activities. Respondent No.2 had availed financial
assistance from respondent No.1-Bank by mortgaging an
immovable property bearing Site No.5 (old BDA Site No.357,
th th
subsequently renumbered as 357/5), situated at 65 cross, 5
block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru [ the schedule property ] as security
for repayment of the loan.
4. On account of default committed by respondent No.2 in
repayment of the loan, respondent No.1-Bank initiated proceedings
under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
[ the Act ] a nd issued a sale notice dated 05.07.2016 proposing to
auction the secured asset for recovery of the outstanding dues of
` 1,21,34,766.81/-. Pursuant thereto, an e-auction was conducted
on 16.08.2016 in which the appellant emerged as a successful
bidder for a sum of ` 1,33,00,000/-. Upon receipt of the entire sale
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
consideration, respondent No.1-Bank issued a sale certificate
dated 29.08.2016 in favour of the appellant, which was
subsequently registered on 08.09.2016.
5. It is the case of the appellant that, when it approached the
concerned revenue authorities for mutation of khata in its favour, it
came to know that respondent No.2 had already initiated
proceedings under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal [ the DRT ] on 25.07.2016, challenging the
measures initiated by respondent No.1-Bank. According to the
appellant, the Bank, despite being aware of the pendency of the
said proceedings, conducted the auction without disclosing the
same.
6. The learned Single Judge observed that the earlier order of
the DRT directing refund of the auction sale consideration had
been set aside by this Court and upon remand, the DRT had
dismissed TSA.No.47/2017 by order dated 19.02.2024 upholding
the possession and sale notices. The learned Single Judge further
observed that the appellant's application seeking refund has been
rejected by the DRT on 14.08.2024, which remained unchallenged.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
In the absence of any challenge to the said order, the appellant
could not maintain an independent writ petition seeking the very
same relief bypassing the statutory appellate remedy. Accordingly,
the writ petition was dismissed, leaving open all the questions
relating to refund, interest and cancellation of the sale certificate.
Reasons and conclusion
7. The undisputed facts reveal that the appellant participated in
the e-auction conducted by respondent No.1- Bank on 16.08.2016
and emerged as a successful bidder for consideration of
` 1,33,00,000/-. Upon payment of the sale consideration, a sale
certificate dated 29.08.2016 was issued in favour of the appellant
and subsequently registered on 08.09.2016. However, respondent
No.2-Borrower had already instituted proceedings under Section 17
of the Act on 25.07.2016, challenging the measures initiated by the
respondent No.1-Bank. The said proceedings initially numbered as
SA.No.376/2016 and was subsequently transferred and
renumbered as TSA.No.47/2017. The DRT by order dated
21.08.2017, allowed the application, set aside the measures
challenged therein and directed respondent No.1-Bank to refund
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
the auction sale consideration with interest at 12% per annum,
relying upon the said order, the appellant sought refund from the
Bank.
8. As the amount was not refunded, the appellant approached
this Court in W.P.No.29449/2019. By order dated 17.07.2019, this
Court directed the Bank to consider the appellant's representation
dated 26.06.2019 and pass a speaking order. Thereafter, the Bank
by its reply dated 14.08.2019 declined the request for refund
referring the pendency of the review proceedings. The appellant
once again approached this Court in W.P.No.51530/2019.
9. The operative portion reads as under:
“(b) Both the sides having argued the matter for sometime,
are graciously in agreement with the suggestion of this court
that the Writ Petition be disposed off with a direction to the
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to hear &
dispose off respondent-banks' Dairy Nos.146-147/2020
within a period of eight weeks; liberty should also be
reserved to the petitioner to move this court seeking revival
of the petition if the Tribunal does not dispose off the matter.
Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off,
all contentions having been kept open.
No costs.”
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
10. Subsequently, the appellant instituted W.P.No.583/2023
seeking refund of the amount. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1-
Bank having suffered an adverse order dated 29.03.2023 in
RA(SA).No.8/2021 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
[ the DRAT ], approached this Court in W.P.No.9467/2023. The
Division Bench, by order dated 20.12.2023, allowed the writ petition
and set aside the order dated 21.08.2017 passed in
TSA.No.47/2017 and remitted the matter to the DRT for fresh
consideration on merits, permitting the Bank to cure the statutory
deficiencies within the stipulated period. The Division Bench further
directed that the amount deposited be transferred to the DRT
subject to its further orders and expressly reserved liberty to the
auction purchaser to file an application seeking refund, to be
considered in accordance with law and all contentions of the
parties were kept open.
11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand, the DRT
reconsidered TSA.No.47/2017 and, by order dated 19.02.2024,
dismissed the application filed by respondent No.2-Borrower,
upholding the possession and sale notices issued by the
respondent No.1- Bank. The DRT also permitted the Bank to
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
proceed in accordance with the Act and Rules framed thereunder,
including in respect of the auction conducted in favour of the
appellant.
12. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged and has
attained finality. Thereafter, in W.P.No.583/2023, this Court, by
order dated 26.06.2024, permitted the appellant to approach the
DRT by filing an application seeking refund from the amount of
` 2,46,29,865/- deposited by respondent No.1-Bank before this
Court. The DRT was directed to consider such application after
affording reasonable opportunity to the parties.
13. Pursuant to the said liberty, the appellant filed an application
before the DRT seeking refund of the auction sale consideration.
The DRT by order dated 14.08.2024 rejected the application
observing that respondent No.1-Bank had not suppressed material
information at the time of publication of the sale notice as the
proceedings under Section 17 of the Act had been instituted
subsequently. The DRT also found no material irregularity,
illegality, fraud or collusion warranting interference with the auction
sale.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
14. It is significant that the appellant has not challenged the
order dated 14.08.2024 before the DRAT. Instead, the appellant
preferred the writ petition seeking substantially the same relief of
refund.
15. The aforesaid chronology makes it evident that the original
order dated 21.08.2017 seeking refund of the sale consideration,
ceased to operate upon being set aside by the Division Bench on
20.12.2023. Thereafter, the proceedings initiated by the Borrower
were dismissed by the DRT on 19.02.2024 and the independent
claim of the appellant for refund was also rejected on 14.08.2024.
Thus, there exists a subsisting adjudication by the competent
Tribunal against the appellant's claim for refund.
16. The contention of the appellant that respondent No.1-Bank
had a knowledge of pendency of the proceedings before
conducting the auction but failed to disclose the same, cannot be
examined independently in the present proceeding without
questioning the order of the DRT rejecting the refund claim.
17. When the appellant has already invoked the jurisdiction of
the DRT and suffered an adverse order, it was incumbent upon the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58065-DB
WA No. 2286 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694032026
appellant to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18
of the Act, without challenging the order dated 14.08.2024, the
appellant cannot maintain an independent writ petition seeking the
very same relief.
18. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that
the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the
writ petition. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned order
warranting interference in this intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the
writ appeal is dismissed.
19. Pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
AT
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14