OquiliaOquilia
Legal

Karnataka High Court rejects Saraswat Bank's late defence in auction deposit refund suit

The Karnataka High Court held on 3 November 2026 that Saraswat Co-operative Bank cannot add a late plea to block a builder's suit seeking refund of a deposit made in a failed bank auction.

Key points

  • The Karnataka High Court dismissed Saraswat Co-operative Bank's petition against a commercial court order, the court held on 3 November 2026.
  • The court held that a suit to refund a deposit paid in a bank auction does not, prima facie, concern the bank's business under Section 115.
  • The refund suit filed by the builder against the bank will continue in the Bengaluru commercial court.
Oquilia Newsroom
Financial news desk covering SEBI, RBI, IRDAI, and Budget-related developments.
2 min read · 368 wordsहिन्दी में पढ़ें
Verified SourcesSource: Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru at the end of a garden path

Photo: Vivek Urs / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (cropped). File photo.

The Karnataka High Court on 3 November 2026 dismissed a petition by Saraswat Co-operative Bank, which wanted to add a new defence late in a suit filed by a Bengaluru real-estate firm, Royale Builders and Developers. The firm is seeking a refund, with interest, of money it deposited when the bank auctioned mortgaged properties to recover a loan. The court held that the bank could not raise the new plea at this stage.

What Happened

According to the judgment, the bank notified certain mortgaged properties for auction and the firm made deposits. The sale did not go through, and the deposit stayed with the bank. The firm then sued in a Bengaluru commercial court for its return.

After evidence had begun, the bank asked to amend its written statement (its formal reply in the suit) to argue that the suit was barred. It said Section 115 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 requires 90 days' notice to the Central Registrar before a suit is filed against such a society. The commercial court rejected the request on 14 July 2026.

The High Court upheld that order. It held that once a trial has started, a party must show it could not have raised the plea earlier despite due diligence, and the bank gave no such reason. It noted the bank's conduct had delayed the suit and that the late plea would prejudice the firm, including on limitation. The court also held that Section 115 applies where a dispute relates to the constitution, management or business of the society, and that refunding a deposit made in an auction cannot, prima facie, be said to fall within it. It said the final question remains for the commercial court.

What It Means

The refund suit will now continue in the commercial court. For buyers who bid in bank auctions, the ruling shows that a multi-state co-operative bank cannot rely on a statutory notice defence it did not raise at the start, and that a dispute over refunding an auction deposit was not, prima facie, treated as the bank's business under Section 115. Customers with a complaint against a bank can also approach the RBI at https://cms.rbi.org.in.

Source: High Court judgment

Sources & Citations

  1. High Court judgment — Karnataka High Court

This article was last reviewed on 5 November 2026 by Oquilia's editorial team. Every claim is sourced from primary regulatory materials (CBDT, IRDAI, RBI, SEBI, Indian Kanoon). View our methodology.

Found an error? Report an issue.