1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to return the original title deeds in its custody pertaining to the petition schedule property belonging to the petitioner by canceling the mortgage deed.

ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 not to initiate any action against the Petitioner with respect to the petition schedule property.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 – Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) had allotted plot No.251-A7 in Sy.Nos.209 and 212 situated at Bommasandra Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. That the KIADB permitted the Petitioner to mortgage the schedule property to avail a loan from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) for putting up of a building, plant and machinery. That the Petitioner had applied for a term loan of Rs.40,60,000/- for procuring certain machines against the security of the schedule property. That the loan as sought for was sanctioned and Mortgage Deed dated 24.8.1995 was executed by the Petitioner in favour of the KSFC.

3. The Respondent No.3 was allotted adjoining plot No.251/A5 at Bommasandra Industrial Area. It is the further case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.3 had applied for sanction of an additional term loan of Rs.95,00,000/- from the KSFC and a charge on the said property was also created in favour of the KSFC. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the KSFC by exerting “undue influence” over the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner that the additional loan sanctioned to the Respondent No.3 would be secured by the collateral security of land and additional building of the Petitioner at plot No.251-A7, issued a sanction letter dated 06.06.1996. That thereafter, the erstwhile partners of the Petitioner executed a confirmation letter dated 22.07.1996 stating that they have deposited the Title Deeds of the schedule property as security for the loan of Rs.95,00,000/- availed by the Respondent No.3.

4. The Petitioner further contends that ‘No Objection Letter’ issued by the KIADB was only in respect of the term loan of the Petitioner. It is further contended that under the terms of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as well as the norms of the KIADB, the Petitioner is not entitled to alienate the schedule property in any manner without the express consent of the KIADB. Despite demands by the Petitioner to return its Title Deeds, the KSFC continues to hold the documents of title to the schedule property. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. The KSFC has opposed the present Writ Petition on various grounds, inter alia, that, the Directors of the Respondent No.3 as well as the partners of the Petitioner are all the family members of Sri Gurappa Desai; the Petitioner has misrepresented and suppressed various facts in filing the present writ petition; the Petitioner had expressly vide letter dated 22.07.1996 confirmed its intention to create security by way of equitable mortgage for due repayment of the loan of Rs.95,00,000/- sanctioned by the KSFC to Respondent No.3. It is the case of the KSFC the Petitioner had expressly offered the schedule property as security for the loan granted by the KSFC to Respondent No.3 and it is now not open to the Petitioner to file the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs sought in this Petition and seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. Sri.S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner contended that:

a) It is not in dispute that the credit facilities applied for by the Petitioner were not availed and no disbursement of any money has been made by the KSFC to the Petitioner;

b) In the absence of the KSFC disbursing any monies to the Petitioner, they are illegally holding the Title Deeds, which were offered as security by the Petitioner.

7. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:

i) Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and other (2010) 11 SCC 186 [LQ/SC/2010/762] ,;

ii) Mr.Sunil s/o Ratnakar Gutte v. Union Bank of India (W.P.No.32/2022, DD 13.06.2022 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur),); and

iii) Lingaiah v. The State of Karnataka By its State Public Prosecutor ILR 2006 KAR 3305.

8. Putting forth the said contentions & placing reliance on the aforementioned judgments, Petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition and grant of relief mentioned therein.

9. Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the KSFC submitted that:

"a) The Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and has not disclosed the other litigations that have been initiated by it and the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on the said sole ground;

b) The Petitioner was represented to be a partnership firm in all its interactions with the KSFC. However, the present Writ Petition has been filed describing it as a proprietory concern;

c) The Petitioner has expressly, vide letter dated 22.07.1996 offered its property as security for the loan given by the KSFC to the Respondent No.3;

d) Till the entire amount due and payable by the Respondent No.3 to the KSFC is repaid, the Title Deeds of the Petitioner are not liable to be returned by KSFC."

10. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the KSFC relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd v. State Bank of India 2007 (8) SCC 449 [LQ/SC/2007/1021 ;] ">2007 (8) SCC 449 [LQ/SC/2007/1021 ;] [LQ/SC/2007/1021 ;] and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

11. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

12. The question that arises for consideration is, ‘Whether the KSFC is liable to return the Title Deeds of the Petitioner’s property’

13. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has executed the Mortgage Deed dated 24.08.1995 as well as the letter dated 22.07.1996. It is further not in dispute that no amounts have been disbursed by the KSFC to the Petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.3 is due and liable to KSFC large amounts of money which were advanced to it.

14. Although no money has been advanced to the Petitioner, the Petitioner having expressly, vide letter dated 22.07.1996 offered to create charge on its property as security for any amounts that are due and payable by the Respondent No.3 to KSFC, it cannot unilaterally be permitted to resile from the said undertaking.

15. It is the contention of the Petitioner that without the express consent and approval of the KIADB, it is not open to the Petitioner to alienate the schedule property in any manner. Having regard to the same and undisputedly, the KIADB not having granted any permission for the property to be given as security for the loan given by the KSFC to the Respondent No.3, the KSFC is not entitled to retain the Title Deeds of the property of the Petitioner. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that, without the express approval and consent of the KIADB to offer the property as security, the execution of the letter dated 22.07.1996 will not entitle the KSFC to withhold the Title Deeds.

16. It is pertinent to note that the KIADB has been arrayed as Respondent No.2 to the present Writ Petition and duly served and represented by counsel. However, they have not filed their Statement of Objections taking a definite stand in the matter. It is also not in dispute that the KIADB has not taken any action against the Petitioner, pursuant to the Petitioner having executed the letter of confirmation in favour of the KSFC. Notwithstanding the fact that the KIADB has not granted permission to the Petitioner to offer the same as security for the credit facility availed by the Respondent No.3, it is not open to the Petitioner having admittedly executed the letter of confirmation dated 22.07.1996 whereby, the intention of the Petitioner to create security of its property by way of equitable mortgage for due performance and repayment of the sum of Rs.95,00,000/- sanctioned to the Respondent No.3, to subsequently dispute the same to contend that it cannot be treated as a valid charge/Mortgage. It is also to be noted that the requirement of the Petitioner to offer its property as collateral security was specifically mentioned in the sanction letter dated 06.06.1996 issued by the KSFC in favour of the Respondent No.3. Pursuant to the said stipulation, the Petitioner having executed the letter dated 22.07.1996, the KSFC has disbursed monies to the Respondent No.3. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner is estopped from putting forth the said contention.

17. The Petitioner has contended that the KSFC exerting ”undue influence” over Respondent No.3 and Petitioner issued sanction letter dated 06.06.1996 in favour of the Respondent No.3 whereunder, a condition was stipulated that the property of the Petitioner is required to be offered as collateral security. The said contention is ex facie liable to be rejected since the Petitioner has resorted to making allegation of undue influence after an inordinate delay of more than 10 years. It is not the case of the Petitioner that immediately upon the sanction letter dated 06.06.1996 that the Petitioner objected to the inclusion of the condition requiring creation of collateral security of its property. Further, after the said stipulation in the sanction letter, the Petitioner has offered its property as collateral security vide letter dated 22.07.1996 and the KSFC has disbursed monies to the Respondent No.3 in terms of the sanction letter. It appears that the Petitioner in a desperate attempt to escape its liability under the letter dated 22.07.1996, that it has resorted to making said allegation of “undue influence”. It is settled law that full details of such “undue influence” is required to be pleaded whenever such an allegation is made. The Petitioner has not set out the required details/particulars with respect to its allegation of “undue influence”. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected.

18. With regard to the contention of the KSFC that the Petitioner has been described as a Partnership Firm in the loan documents, but, in the present Writ Petition the Petitioner is described as a proprietary concern, a Memo dated 08.07.2019 was filed by the Petitioner intimating that the Partnership Firm was dissolved by a Deed of Dissolution dated 14.11.2001 and it was stipulated that the property in question was belonging to Mallikarjun G.Desai and liberty was given to him to carry on the business of the dissolved Firm. A copy of Form-B issued on 18.07.2006 by the Sales Tax Department treating the Petitioner as a proprietary concern is annexed to the said Memo. The said aspect is not required to be adjudicated upon for the purpose of deciding the question that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition. Hence, no finding is recorded in respect of the same.

19. It has been vehemently contended by the KSFC that the Petitioner has earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.35701/2009 and W.A.No.2707/2010 challenging the notice issued to the Petitioner by the KSFC under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’). It is relevant to state here that aggrieved by initiation of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Petitioner preferred W.P.No.35701/2009. This Court vide order dated 10.06.2010 disposed off the said Writ Petition at the request of the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an Appeal. It is further relevant to state that aggrieved by the said order dated 10.06.2010, the Petitioner preferred W.A.No.2707/2010. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2010 dismissed the Writ Appeal keeping open the contentions to be raised in an Appeal, if any, to be filed by the Petitioner.

20. It is forthcoming from a perusal of the order dated 27.07.2010 passed in W.A.No.2707/2010 that the Petitioner had also raised a ground that, having regard to the condition of KIADB, the security offered by the Petitioner of its property cannot be treated as a valid security and the documents furnished by the Petitioner cannot be treated as creation of Mortgage. Hence, it is clear that the Petitioner has resorted to filing various proceedings attempting to put forth the same contention that is sought to be urged in the present Writ Petition regarding validity of the security created by it. Hence, the Petitioner ought to have disclosed the proceedings initiated by it challenging the SARFAESI proceedings in the present Writ Petition also.

21. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited (2008) 12 SCC 481, [LQ/SC/2008/1382] the Apex Court has held thus:

“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.”

22. Having regard to what is stated hereinabove, the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be exercised in such cases where it is ex facie forthcoming that the conduct of the Petitioner itself is without blemish.

23. In the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court ordering the Bank to return the Title Deeds having regard to the fact that the borrower had cleared the outstanding balances due and the Bank in its own statement of accounts, after clearing of dues by the borrower, had shown the “uncleared amount as nil”. Hence, the said judgment will not come to the aid of the Petitioner and the same is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case.

24. In the case of Mr.Sunil s/o Ratnakar Gutte (supra), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, considering the decision of the Bank to withhold the documents as security for another loan applied by the Petitioner in his individual capacity, interfered with the same since the loan which the Company had borrowed wherein the Petitioner in the said case and the other Directors had been repaid. The said case also will not come to the aid of the Petitioner, inasmuch as the Petitioner in the said case had not offered the property as security for due repayment of his personal loans also.

25. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.