Karnataka High Court
Smt R Anitha vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd on 11 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14672
WP No. 7019 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 7019 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. R.ANITHA @
RAMANNA ANITHA
W/O. LATE SRI. GOPALA GOWDA MANJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14, 14TH CROSS,
BEHIND SVBS COMPLEX,
BARATENA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 100
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONER
SUVARNA T
Location:
(BY SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.9, GROUND FLOOR,
SOMA MERIT,
VENKATASWAMY NAIDU STREET,
TASKER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 051
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14672
WP No. 7019 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
(IRDA REGISTRATION NO.116)
BAJAJ INSURANCE HOUSE,
AIR PORT ROAD, YERAWADA,
PUNE 411 006
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 11.02.2026 ISSUED BY
THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER AND TO HER LATE HUSBAND VIDE
ANNEXURE-H AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE DATED
11.02.2026 VIDE ANNX-H ISSUED BY THE R1 HEREIN TO THE
PETITIONER AND TO HER LATE HUSBAND PENDING DISPOSAL
OF THE ABOVE WP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14672
WP No. 7019 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"Therefore, under the circumstances, the petitioner above named prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to;
1. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 11.02.2026 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner and to her late husband vide Annexure-H and;
2. Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that SARFAESI proceedings were initiated against the dead person, in spite of the fact that the same is brought to the notice of respondent No.1. It is submitted that no proceedings can be initiated against the dead person, aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. When the matter came up on the last occasion, this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharathi -4- NC: 2026:KHC:14672 WP No. 7019 of 2026 HC-KAR Vidya Mandir and others1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the petition is not maintainable against a private Bank or a private institution. Though the proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time. Today he has placed before this Court the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.2, arising out of Special Leave petition (C) Nos.2625-2627 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025. It is submitted that though the Hon'ble Apex Court has not interfered with the order passed by the High Court with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.10 has protected the interest of the borrower which reads as follow:
"10. Even while rejecting the writ petition on the ground of its maintainability, the High Court has protected the interest of the parties by observing in paras 6.1 as under:-
"6.1 Following order shall govern,
(i) It would be open for the respondent -
original petitioner to have recourse to civil remedy before the appropriate Court in relation to the claim and grievance which she agitated by filing the writ petitions.
1 (2022) 5 SCC 345 2 2025 INSC 117 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14672 WP No. 7019 of 2026 HC-KAR
(ii) The appellant-Company is not precluded from taking any recourse in law, if it is of the view that it has any claim against the respondent - party-in-person.
(iii) It is also open to either side to invoke arbitration clause and engage in the process of arbitration to resolve the disputes.
(iv) The amount of Rs.24,39,085/-, which has been realized from sale of the gold pursuant to the auction conducted by the appellant- Company, shall remain deposited with the Registry of this Court.
(v) The Registry shall invest the said amount in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and renewable.
(vi) Such Fixed Deposit shall continue to renew for a maximum period of three years.
(vii) The amount of interest which may accrue on such deposit shall be receivable by the respondent- petitioner.
(viii) However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to raise any loan on the Fixed Deposit.
(ix) The Fixed Deposit kept shall remain in custody of the Registry of this Court.
(x) It would be open for either party to take recourse of civil remedy or before the arbitration within a period of three months from today."
4. It is submitted that if this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable against the private finance company and the life insurance corporation, the Court can protect the interest of the petitioner for a limited period and give liberty to the petitioner to go before the DRT. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:14672 WP No. 7019 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused judgments that are passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of S Shobha (referred suppra) and Phoenix ARC Private Limited (referred supra).
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited referred to supra at paragraph No.12 held as follows:
"12. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution - ARC - appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation (supra) and Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers."-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:14672 WP No. 7019 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. In that view of the matter and even in the light of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of S Shobha (referred suppra) the writ petition is not maintainable, however, with regard to the submission of the learned counsel that the interest of the petitioner may be protected as it was done in S Shobha's case referred to supra which was not interfered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The recent judgments arising out of SARFAESI proceedings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that when the writ petition itself is not maintainable, the High Court cannot pass any interim order. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot pass any interim order or protect the interests of the petitioner till he approaches the DRT. If it is a case, where the writ petition is maintainable, however the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the DRT, in those cases, this Court is passing orders based on the facts and circumstances of the case, protecting the interests of the party. But this is a case where the writ petition itself is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14672 WP No. 7019 of 2026 HC-KAR ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
ii. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.
iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29