- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2688 WP No. 1468 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1468 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA YAJAMANA INDUSTRIES (BORROWER), DOOR NO.1-83/4A, SY.NO.43-2-AP 1, CHENNAITHODY VILLAGE, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 574 324. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. T. VARADARAJAPAI (GUARANTOR AND MORTGAGER), AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAGHUNATH PAI T, DOOR NO.1-83/4, CHENNAITHODY VILLAGE, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 574 324. 2. M/S. VISHNUPRIYA CASHEW INDUSTRIES (BORROWER), SY.NO.13/8A4, KADABETTU CROSS, KADABETTU VILLAGE, BANTWAL CROSS, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 574 211 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. T. VARADARAJAPAI (GUARANTOR AND MORTGAGER), AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAGHUNATH PAI T. Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2688 WP No. 1468 of 2025 3. M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENAKTARAMANA CASHEW RURAL INDUSTRIES, DOOR NO.2-103, FIRST FLOOR, CHENNAITHODY VILLAGE, MAVINAKATTE POST, BANTWAL TQ., DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST. MR. T. VARADARAJAPAI (GUARANTOR AND MORTGAGER), AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAGHUNATH PAI T, 4. M/S. SHASHANK CASHEW INDUSTRIES O/AT SY.NO.79/5, PILATHABETTU VILLAGE, NAINADU POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 324. MR. T. VARADARAJAPAI (GUARANTOR AND MORTGAGER), AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAGHUNATH PAI T, …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE HONBLE GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 18TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICER BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGATH SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK, MANGALORE, MANNAGUDDA BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, POONAM ANANDNIKETHAN, NEAR BHAT S NURSING HOME, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2688 WP No. 1468 of 2025 GANDHINAGAR MAIN ROAD, POST, MANNAGUDDA, GANDHINAGAR, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA - 575 003, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. 3. THE GENERAL MANGER CANARA BANK-CIRCLE OFFICE, MANGALORE BALMATTA ROAD, LIGHT HOUSE HILL BALMATTA RD., MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 575 001. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANARA BANK, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO'S SECRETARIAT, HEAD OFFICE, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. PHONE: 080-22100250 FAX 080-22248831 E-MAIL: HOSECRETARIAL@CANARABANK.COM …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DRT-I BENGALURU IN S.A.NO. 507/2024 (ANNX-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2688 WP No. 1468 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Sri.Prakash Hegde.K, learned counsel has entered appearance for the 2nd Respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the writ petition has been filed questioning an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. It is submitted that an appeal remedy is available for the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and this writ petition cannot be maintained, even if it is the contention of the petitioners that their grounds, which were raised before the DRT, that the petitioners is an MSME and therefore, such action for recovery of debts could not have been initiated by the respondent-Bank, was not considered by the DRT. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that another ground has been raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that some of the assets mortgaged with the respondent-Bank are agricultural lands; under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the bank cannot be permitted to proceed against the agricultural lands. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2688 WP No. 1468 of 2025 2. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for a respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, even if it is the contention of the petitioners that it is an MSME and that some of the secured assets are agricultural lands, and the respondent-Bank could not have proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that when an appeal remedy is available for the petitioners to question any order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv, Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK