MR. MOHAMMED SHALAM vs BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, — WP/201348/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC030036792026

Filing Number

WP/201144/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/201348/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

S.vishwajith Shetty

Coram

S.vishwajith Shetty

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

RES-Residuary ( 34 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MR. MOHAMMED SHALAM

    Adv. SRINIVAS YADAV

  2. 2.MRS. ASIYA BEGUM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    S.vishwajith ShettyView PDF

    The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by borrowers Mohammed Shalam and Asiya Begum challenging Bajaj Housing Finance's notice to surrender mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. The court disposed of the petition by directing the borrowers to move a memo before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to prioritize consideration of their pending Section 17 application challenging the property seizure, finding this approach would better serve justice than deciding the matter at the High Court level. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Orders

    S.vishwajith Shetty

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/201348/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by borrowers Mohammed Shalam and Asiya Begum challenging Bajaj Housing Finance's notice to surrender mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. The court disposed of the petition by directing the borrowers to move a memo before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to prioritize consideration of their pending Section 17 application challenging the property seizure, finding this approach would better serve justice than deciding the matter at the High Court level. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case