- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11710 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT VANITHA K D/O KRISHNA., W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. NO.501, 4TH FLOOR, NO. 501, IV FLOOR, SIRINANDANA APARTMENT, GOWDANAPALYA, B.S.K. II STAGE, NEAR BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560 070, ALSO AT R/O. AKSHYA RESIDENCY, I FLOOR, 54 E CROSS, RAJEEVNAGAR, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070 2. SRI. DASHARATH RAO NIMBALKAR, S/O. LATE LAKSHMAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 501, IV FLOOR, SIRINANDANA APARTMENT, GOWDANAPALYA, NEAR BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560 070 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TRUE HOME FINANCE LTD (FORMERLY SRI RAM HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 NO. 96, GROUND FLOOR, R.B. MANOR, 20TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU 560 010. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER REGD. OFFICE AT SRINIVASA TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, NO.5, OLD NO.11, 2ND LANE, CENATOPH ROAD, ALWARPET, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600 018, TAMILNADU …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K V LOKESH., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT BANK WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT IN THE ISSUE AS PER THE VARIOUS REP VIDE ANNEXURE-H, DATED:03.08.2021, 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 Petitioner No.1 is the loanee and the 2nd petitioner is the tenant in the premises. Petitioners have sought for calling for records from the respondent - Bank and for issuance of writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the notice at Annexure-C issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 short 'the SARFAESI Act'). Petitioners have also sought for setting aside the possession notice at Annexure-P. Petitioners have also sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to consider the representations at Annexures- H, J, K, L, N, Q and S. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that due to onset of Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioners have undergone financial stringency and they require restructuring of the loan. 3. It is noticed that this Court while considering the writ petition had granted interim direction subject to certain payments. It is submitted by the petitioners that payment could not be made due to financial stringency. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that the petitioners have to avail of the substantive remedy before the DRT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 5. 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 contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 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. 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 alternative remedy by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 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." 6. 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. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 8. 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. 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioners 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 petitioners may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 10. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have made out a plea of extreme hardship and had also sought for restructuring of the loan. Though the Court is relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy before the DRT, it is always open for the Bank to consider the request for restructuring in the peculiar facts - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20981 WP No. 11710 of 2025 as made out. Needless to state that it is a decision to be taken by the Bank after looking into all aspects of the matter. Insofar as the right of the tenant under Section 17-4A of SARFAESI Act, tenants may work out their substantive remedy in terms of the SARFAESI Act. 11. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. 12. In light of the above, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20