- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20663 WP No. 9248 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9248 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT TEJASVINI ALBERT PEREIRA D/O RATHANAKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 825 2ND FLOOR BLOCK D D7, BDA FLATS BEHIND JASMADEVI MANDAP AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA 560047 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJ PRABHU S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA ULSOOR ROAD BRANCH NO. 21, ULSOOR ROAD OPP TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BENGALURU-42. 2. MRS. SHANTA BAI W/O LATE RATHNAKAR SHIVA NILAYA, NEAR ANJANADRI COMPLEX NO. 5/1, 2ND CROSS MM ROAD BYATARANAPURA, BENGALURU 560026. 3. MR. ROSHAN, S/O LATE RATHANAKAR SHIVA NILAYA, NEAR ANJANADRI COMPLEX NO. 5/1 2ND CROSS MM ROAD BYATARANAPURA, BENGALURU 560026 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20663 WP No. 9248 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 20.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-1 SUBSEQUENTLY TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY LAND AND BUILDING BEING FRONT PORTION OF PROPERTY BEARING NO. 5 SHIVA NILAYA, MUNICIPAL NO. 5/1, PID NO. 41-47-5/1 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 28 FEET TOTALLY MEASURING 784 SQ. FEET SITUATED AT 2ND CROSS BYATARANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU -5600126 BY R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -D, 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 Learned Counsel for respondent-Bank submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner does not survive for consideration as the challenge is only to a possession notice and the petitioner ought to have invoked substantive remedy under Section 17 insofar as any measure under Section 13. 2. It is further submitted that the interim order was granted subject to petitioner paying an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the loan account, which condition has also not been complied with. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20663 WP No. 9248 of 2025 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. 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 remedy before the Debt 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20663 WP No. 9248 of 2025 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20663 WP No. 9248 of 2025 and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective 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." 5. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20663 WP No. 9248 of 2025 regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 7. 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 two weeks from today. 8. 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. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80