Asrec (India) Limited vs Jaydev Motors

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 18, 2025

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1745704

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1745704
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: E.S.Indiresh
Decided On: Nov 18, 2025
Case Number: WP/20473/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Asrec (India) Limited

Respondent

Jaydev Motors

Excerpt

.....act. accordingly sought for interference of this court.5. per contra, sri rajendra m.a., learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4, invited the attention of the court to the reasons assigned by the learned judge at paragraph 14 of theimpugned order at annexure-a, and contented that, the orderof review has been made by the learned judge by taking note of the factual aspects on record and by considering the provision under order xxi rule 36 of cpc, therefore sought to justify the impugned order.6. in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, on careful consideration of the scheme of the act, it would indicate that, as soon as theorder is passed by the competent court under section 14 ofthe sarfaesi act, the said court would become functus officio, unless the said order is challenged before the competent court/tribunal under the provisions of the sarfaesi act.7. in that view of the matter, as the court in which theorder is passed under section 14 of the sarfaesi act hasbecome functus officio, the said court has no jurisdiction to -5- review its own order and therefore, i find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.7. accordingly, the order dated 14.08.2023 in crl. misc.no.93 of 2023 on the file of the principal senior civil judge and cjm, udupi (annexure-a) is set aside and the order dated 30.06.2023 (annexure-c) in crl.misc.no.93 of 2023, is hereby revived. however, it is open for the respondent no.5 to challenge the impugned order dated 30.06.2023, if so advised. time spent before this court be condoned in the event if an appropriate petition is filed by the respondent no.5 before the competent authority, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. writ petition is disposed of accordingly. sd/- (e.s.indiresh) judge rs/ct-sg/list no.: 1

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 20473 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: ASREC (INDIA) LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT : SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK, BUILDING NO.2, UNIT NO.201-202A AND 200-202 B, GR FLOOR, ANDHERI GHATKOPAR LINK RD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400 093 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MANJUNATH N, GENERAL MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JAYDEV MOTORS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRPRIETOR MR. JAYARAM SUVARNA Digitally signed by S/O. LOKAYYA POOJARY
ARUNKUMAR M S          AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Location: HIGH         NO.1ST CROSS, ARJ ARCADE,
COURT OF               UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD,
KARNATAKA INDRALI, UDUPI - 576 102
2. MR. JAYARAM SUVARNA S/O. LOKAYYA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S JAYDEV MOTORS NO.1ST CROSS, ARJ ARCADE, UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD, INDRALI, UDUPI - 576102
3. JAYADEV AUTOMOBILES,

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS -2- i) MR. JAYARAM SUVARNA S/O LOKAYYA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ii) MRS. RENU J SUVARNA, W/O JARAYAM SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS iii) MR. ANISH J SUVARNA, S/O JAYARAM SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.1ST CROSS, ARJ ARCADE, UDUPI-MANIPAL ROAD, INDRALI, UDUPI - 576 102 PARTNERSHIP FIRM

4. MRS. RENU JAYARAM SUVARNA, W/O. JARAYAM SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO. H. NO. 4-343A1, HAYAGREEVA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, INDRALI, SHIVALLI, KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI - 576 102

5. M/S THE WAREHOUSE GYM

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY IS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI SOUJANYA ANAND SHETTY HAVING ADDRESS AT : FLAT NO. 101, SAI RADHA PRIDE, F-WING, BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI - 576 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. K. PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

DATED 14/08/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI IN CRL.MISC.NO.93/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

-3- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner- Bank is assailing the order dated 14.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.Case No.93/2023 (Annexure-A) on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi.

3. Sri Shetty Vignesh Shivaram, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that, the Bank has presented the petition before the Competent Court, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') and in this regard, the Competent Court has passed an order dated 30.06.2023 allowing the petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. However, at the instance of the application filed by the respondent No.5 to review the order dated 30.06.2023, the impugned order at Annexure-A came to be passed on 14.08.2023.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that,

the learned Judge has committed an error in exercising the -4- review power in the absence of any specific provision under the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly sought for interference of this court.

5. Per contra, Sri Rajendra M.A., learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, invited the attention of the Court to the reasons assigned by the learned Judge at paragraph 14 of the

impugned order at Annexure-A, and contented that, the order

of review has been made by the learned Judge by taking note of the factual aspects on record and by considering the provision under Order XXI Rule 36 of CPC, therefore sought to justify the impugned order.

6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, on careful consideration of the Scheme of the Act, it would indicate that, as soon as the

Order is passed by the Competent Court under Section 14 of

the SARFAESI Act, the said Court would become functus officio, unless the said order is challenged before the Competent Court/Tribunal under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

7. In that view of the matter, as the Court in which the

Order is passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has

become functus officio, the said Court has no jurisdiction to -5- review its own order and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 14.08.2023 in Crl. Misc.

No.93 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi (Annexure-A) is set aside and the Order dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure-C) in Crl.Misc.No.93 of 2023, is hereby revived. However, it is open for the respondent No.5 to challenge the impugned order dated 30.06.2023, If so advised. Time spent before this Court be condoned in the event if an appropriate petition is filed by the Respondent No.5 before the Competent Authority, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs/CT-SG/List No.: 1

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties Asrec (India) Limited vs Jaydev Motors Same Judge E.S.Indiresh