MR. UMESH, v. SMFG INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED

Court: High Court of Karnataka

Bench: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Judgment date: 2026-04-16

Case summary

High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2026-04-16. MR. UMESH, v. SMFG INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

- 1 - WP No. 9925 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9925 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. UMESH, S/O MADDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 244, TH 5 MAIN ROAD, LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068 2. MS. SARANYA M. D. /O MURALI, Digitally AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, signed by SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NAGARAJA B M SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 244, TH Location: 5 MAIN ROAD, HIGH COURT LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, OF KARNATAKA BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI. BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. 3. MR. PUNEETH KUMAR T. H. S/O HALESH KUMAR, AGED A BOUT 29 YEARS, RERSIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 244, 5TH MAIN ROAD, - 2 - WP No.

9925 of 2026 LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068 4. MRS. MANGALA GOWRI, W/O HALESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT45 YEARS. RERSIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 244, 5TH MAIN ROAD, LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. 5. MRS. VASANTHAMMA, W/O M. G. KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA NILAYA, DOOR NO. 6, 3RD FLOOR, SITE NO. 17, SURVEY NO. 244, 5TH MAIN LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI. BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. 6. MRS. SHAKUNTALA N, W/O SOMASEKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, TH SURVEY NO. 244, 5 MAIN ROAD, LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. 7. MR. SYED FAYAZ, S/O SAYED BAB SAHEB, AGED AOUT 38 YEARS - 3 - WP No. 9925 of 2026 8. MRS. SUMAIYA FIRDOSE, W/O SYED FAYAZ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

BOTH RESIDING AT ST 1 FLOOR, HOUSE NO. 2, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 244, 5TH MAIN ROAD, LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. 9. MR. CHETAN G. S. S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT39 YEARS, SR. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANI D. , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMFG INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, VIJAYANAGARA BRANCH, BENGALURU 2. MR. VENKATESH MURTHY G. R. , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO. 17, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 244, 5TH MAINROAD, LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, ILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068 - 4 - WP No. 9925 of 2026 3. MRS. NANDINI K. R, W/O VENKATESH MURTHY, G. R, AGED ABOUT34 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SITE NO.

17, 2ND FLOOR, TH SURVEY NO. 244, 5 MAINROAD, LATE NARAYANAPPA ROAD, ILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE LEASE AMOUNTS TO THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE LEASE DEEDS (ANNEXURE-A1 SERIES) OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY. B) NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE STEPS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN REGARD TO THEIR LEASED PREMISES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER At the outset, this Court is required to examine the maintainability of the writ petition. The present petition is instituted against a private company, which, on the face of the pleadings and material on record, does not answer the - 5 - WP No.

9925 of 2026 description of <State= or <other authority= within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled principle of constitutional law that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is primarily intended to be invoked against the State and its instrumentalities, or bodies discharging public duties or functions of a public character. In the absence of any material to demonstrate that the respondent3company is either an instrumentality of the State or is performing a public function amenable to writ jurisdiction, this Court would be justified in declining to entertain the petition on the ground of maintainability. 2. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on being confronted with the issue of maintainability, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to avail such remedies as are available in law before the appropriate forum. - 6 - WP No.

9925 of 2026 Recording the said submission and reserving liberty as prayed for, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No. : 1 Sl No. : 20

Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.