SMT LAKSHMI K vs JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.2734 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMI K
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O SRI. KASHI LINGAM S,
2. SHRI. KASHA LINGAM S
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE SUBRAMANI A
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.F3,
VIMARSA RESIDENCY 2,
1ST FLOOR, 29TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
JAI BHEEM NAGAR, BTM LAYOUT,
1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 068.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANKUSH NERLE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABISHEK N.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK,
NO.10/1, 11/2 AND 12/2B OF COMLUR,
KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD,
NEXT TO EMBASSY GOLF LINKS,
CHALLAGHATTA,
BENGALURU-560 071
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
SRI. BABU SREEJITH.
2. M/S. JAYA SAI DRIVING SCHOOL
NO.1B, 1ST FLOOR,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR,
NYANAPPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 076
REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR (JAMUNA).
3. MRS. JAMUNA
D/O BALARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
THE PROPRIETOR OF
M/S JAYA SAI DRIVING SCHOOL
NO.1B, 1ST FLOOR, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR,
NYANAPPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 076.
ALSO AT NO.17, SRINIVASA REDDY LAYOUT,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BG ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
4. MR. MANOJ KUMAR S
S/O JAMUNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.17, SRINIVASA REDDY LAYOUT,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BG ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
5. MR. SUPREETH S
S/O JAMUNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NP.17, SRINIVASA REDDY LAYOUT,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI
BG ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. V. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 (V/C)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.10.2023, PASSED BY THE XLI
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.2212/2022, i.e., ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 17.10.2023
[ impugned order ] passed by the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2212/2022,
whereby the petition filed by Jana Small Finance Bank Limited
[ respondent No.1-Bank ] under Section 14 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act' for short) seeking assistance to
take physical possession of the secured asset, came to be allowed.
Brief Facts
2. Petitioner No.2 claims to have purchased the property
bearing Assessment No.5/7, Katha No.17, situated at
Devarachikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
[ schedule property ] from Mrs.Jamuna, Proprietor of M/s. Jaya Sai
Driving School [ respondent No.3 ] under registered sale deed
dated 05.03.2015.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
3. Respondent No.3 executed a gift deed dated 04.06.2015 in
favour of her children, respondent Nos.4 and 5. This led to
petitioner No.2 to institute O.S. No.7047/2015 against respondent
Nos.3 to 5, seeking a declaration, possession and injunction. The
parties subsequently entered into a compromise in the said suit on
02.03.2020. The petitioners claim that respondent Nos.3 to 5
acknowledged the rights of petitioner No.2 and delivered vacant
possession of the schedule property to him. It is further stated that
a deed of consent dated 17.12.2019 was executed and subsequent
gift was cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 17.12.2019.
Thereafter, petitioner No.2 executed a registered gift deed dated
29.10.2020 in favour of petitioner No.1, his wife.
4. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3, in her capacity as
proprietor of M/s. Jaya Sai Driving School, had approached
respondent No.1-Bank seeking financial assistance. The Bank
sanctioned a loan of ` 10,00,000/-. According to the Bank, the
schedule property was offered as security for repayment of the loan
by deposit of title deeds on 27.05.2017. On account of default in
repayment of the loan, the account was classified as a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.10.2018. Thereafter, the Bank
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
initiated proceedings under the Act by issuing the notices under
Sections 13(2) and 13(4) thereof. The Bank subsequently filed a
petition under Section 14 of the Act, seeking assistance to take
physical possession of the schedule property. By the impugned
order, the petition came to be allowed. Challenging the same, the
petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner
No.2 acquired valid title to the schedule property under the
registered sale deed dated 05.03.2015, much prior to the alleged
creation of the mortgage in favour of respondent No.1-Bank on
27.05.2017. It is further contended that the petitioners neither had
any role in the creation of the alleged mortgage nor executed any
document creating a security interest in favour of respondent No.1-
Bank. Nevertheless, the Bank has proceeded against the schedule
property by treating it as a secured asset. Section 17 (1) of the Act
reads as under:
"
17. Application against measures to recover secured
debts.- (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by
any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section
13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer
under this Chapter, may make an application alongwith such
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal
having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from
the date on which such measures had been taken:
Provided that different fees may be prescribed for
making the application by the borrower and the person other
than the borrower."
6. Section 17 of the Act provides that any person, including a
borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section
13(4) of the Act may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The
expression “any person” employed in the provision is of wide
amplitude and is not confined to the borrower or guarantor. It
encompasses even a third party claiming an independent right, title
or interest in the property against which measures have been
initiated by the secured creditors.
7. In the present case, the petitioners claim an independent
right over the schedule property on the strength of a registered sale
deed dated 05.03.2015, whereas respondent No.1-Bank asserts
that a security interest was created in its favour over the schedule
property on 27.01.2017. The petitioners dispute the Bank’s
entitlement to proceed against the schedule property. These are
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56334
WP No. 2734 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010026222024
matters falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
8. Significantly, the petitioners have themselves stated in the
writ petition that they have already approached the DRT by filing
S.A. No.298/2023, which is stated to be pending consideration.
Thus, the petitioners have already invoked the statutory remedy
provided under Section 17 of the Act. In such circumstances, this
Court finds no justification to entertain a parallel challenge to the
measures initiated by the secured creditor by exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy available to them under
Section 17 of the Act.
10. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival claims
of the parties.
Sd/-
________________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
hkh.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6