JAYANTHI vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 23513 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
JAYANTHI
W/O D.RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/ATNO.60 FEET ROAD, NEAR MEI GROUND,
MEI LAYOUT, BOGALAGUNTE PTC,
BANGALORE NORTH NAGASANDRA POST OFFICER,
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT-560073,
MOBILE NO. 8496096789 ETITIONER
AADHARA NO.3495 1090 0784
(PETITIONER NOT CLAIMING ANY BENEFITS UNDER
SENIOR CITIZEN SHIP).
PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
ROOM NO.13062 KARTAVYA BHAVANA,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
PIRAMAL FINANCE LIMITED
C.I.NO.L65910MH1984PL CO32639REGISTERED
OFFICE UNIT NO.601, 6TH FLOOR,
PIRAMAL ANIKS BUILDING AGASTYA CORPORATE
PARK KAMANI JUNCTION
OPP FIRE STATION LBS MARGA KURLA -(WEST)
MUMBAI- 400070 TELEPHONE NO.2238024000
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
PIRAMAL FINANCE LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE NO.32,
OLD NO.5, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR KODAVA SAMAJA
VASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052
CONTACT PERSON PIRAMAL FINANCE LIMITED
PHONE NO.022-69882844.
4.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIRAMAL FINANCE LIMITED VASANTHA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 052 CONTACT PERSON PIRAAL
FINANCE LIMITED PHONE NO.022-69882844.
5. GOVINDARAJ T
S/O OF NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
R/OF 175/2 WARD NO.14, MALLASANDRA
MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, YASHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560057 (BORROWER).
6. LAKSHMIDEVI R
MALLASANDRA MALLASANDRA VILLAGE
YASHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560057 (CO-BORROWER).
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR., ADOVCATE FOR R1;
SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) DIRECTING THE
4TH RESPONDENT SHALL RETURNED EMD AMOUNT
RS.4,95,000/- TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AS PER
ANNEXURE-C DATED 18-07-2026 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
AND CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/07/2026
ANNX-C WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND ETC,.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the 4th respondent shall returned EMD
amount Rs.4,95,000/- to the petitioner
forthwith as per Annexure-C dated 18-07-2026
with immediate effect and consider the
representation dated 18/07/2026 Annexure-C
with immediate effect;
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the jurisdictional police shall registered
a criminal case against the
respondent No.3 and 4 for cheating and render
justice to the petitioner;
iii) Issue a writ or order direction as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit under the circumstance of case
.
in the interest of justice and equity. "
2. The petitioner having participated in an e-auction
sale dated 17.07.2026 conducted by the respondent pursuant
to proceedings having been initiated under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
1
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was declared as a
1
Hereinafter referred to as 'Act'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
Rs.
qualified bidder. A sum of 4,95,000/- was paid by the bidder
2
as Earnest Money Deposit . In terms of the auction the
successful bidder was required to deposit 25% of the bid
amount on the date when he was declared as a successful
bidder. Accordingly, the petitioner having paid the EMD
amount, was required to deposit the remaining 15% of the bid
amount, which was admittedly not done, despite being called
upon to do so.
3. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 issued a
communication dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure-R13 to the
statement of objections) forfeiting the EMD deposited made by
the petitioner.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent No.1 had not disclosed regarding
the pendency of a suit with respect to the subject property and
hence, the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount in
terms of the auction.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that said respondent was also not arrayed as
2
Hereinafter referred to as 'EMD'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
a party to the suit and that the possession of the secured asset
was taken by respondent No.2.
6. In any event, the respondent has raised a
preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the
present writ petition. It is contended that the forfeiture of the
EMD is a measure under Section 14 of the Act and the same is
required to be assailed in proceedings under Section 17 of the
Act.
7. In support of the said contention, learned counsel
for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd V.s.
3
Punjab National Bank and Others , the relevant portion of
which reads is under:
"15. It was further urged that reading of Section 17
would go to show that the application under Section
17 can be made to DRT by “any person” including
borrower to challenge any of the measures referred
to in Section 13(4) once taken by the secured
creditor. However, since forfeiture of the amount
made by the secured creditor against the auction
purchaser is not one of the measures under Section
13(4) and hence, the action of forfeiture made by
the secured creditor cannot be challenged by the
auction purchaser under Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act by filing an application. It was urged that under
these circumstances the appellant had rightly filed
the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the
3
(2018) 1 SCC 626
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
Constitution to challenge the action of forfeiture of
deposit money in the High Court, that being the only
remedy available to them and, therefore, the writ
petition should have been entertained for its hearing
on merits by the writ court. It is these submissions,
which were elaborated by the learned counsel for the
appellant by pointing out relevant provisions of the
SARFAESI Act.
16. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents
(PNB) supported the impugned judgment and
contended that the action impugned in the writ
petition does attract Section 13(4) read with the
Rules framed thereunder and hence the remedy of
the appellant lies in approaching DRT by filing an
application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as
was rightly held by the two Courts below.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in the appeal. In other words, the view taken
by the High Court appears to be just and reasonable
and hence does not call for any interference.
18. The short question that arise for consideration in
this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in
holding that the remedy of the appellant (auction
purchaser) lies in challenging the action of the
secured creditor (PNB) in forfeiting the deposit by
filing an application under Section 17 of the
SARFEASI Act before the DRT or the remedy of
auction purchaser is in filing the writ petition under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to
examine the legality of such action.
31. The auction purchaser (appellant herein) is one
such person, who is aggrieved by the action of the
secured creditor in forfeiting their money. The
appellant, therefore, falls within the expression “any
person” as specified under Section 17(1) and hence
is entitled to challenge the action of the secured
creditor (PNB) before the DRT by filing an application
under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act."
(emphasis supplied)
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58871
WP No. 23513 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010518582026
8. Having regard to the settled proposition of law as
noticed above, the present writ petition stands dismissed .
9. This order will not preclude the petitioner from
availing remedies in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PNV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1