- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7587 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ELEGANT MEDICAL SYSTEMS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 981, 4TH BLOCK, 2ND MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI KABIR DAS RESPONDENT. 2. SRI KABIR DAS R., S/O SRI V RAJAMANICKAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 160, SHARVA KUNJA, 9TH CROSS, MYSORE BANK COLONY, BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SIR M VISVESVARAYA CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD (REGISTERED UNDER THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT) NO.109, CORPORATE OFFICE 2ND FLOOR, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, SHANKARPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 004, IFSC. MVCB0000002, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI B A SREEDHAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V.LOKESH., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 09-05-2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-C DECLARING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF SARFAEST ACT, 2002 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the possession notice issued by the respondent - Bank at Annexure C, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further sought for a relief with respect to proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.50672/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.50685/2024 and made a request for the regularization of the loan account by restructuring the same. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 3. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioners, including as regards to the validity of the action taken by the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interim order passed by this Court has been complied with, as 30% of the outstanding amount has been deposited. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantive remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. He further points out that this Court ought not to intervene where substantive remedy is available under the provision of Section 17 of the Act. 6. In light of the contentions raised, it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are as follows: 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. 7. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioners are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 9. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent - bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of four weeks from today. 10. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive remedy and must not be considered to be an order passed on the basis of adjudication on merits. Upon the lapse of the time stipulated, the protection granted would cease to operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 11. In light of the above, the petition is disposed off. Needless to state that the time spent before this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19854 WP No. 7587 of 2025 Court is a matter to be taken note of while calculating limitation before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14