- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19039 WP No. 12557 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12557 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. GNANA SHALE EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST A REGISTERED TRUST, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 147/3, LAKSHMI NIVAS, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI SRIDHAR NILAKANTA RAO … PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIRANTH S.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI YESHU MISHRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUCO SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK., HEAD OFFICE AT SUCO BHAVANA, MOKA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARY-583 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SUCO SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT SUCO BHAVANA, MOKA ROAD, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19039 WP No. 12557 of 2025 GANDHINAGAR, BALLARY-583 103. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 28.02.2025 BEARING NO. SL/SUCO/HO/LRD/298/2024-25 ISSUED BY R-2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of the demand notice at Annexure-'A' dated 28.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2. Various other grounds have been raised regarding the validity of the demand notice being raised and etc. 2. Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the matter is premature, as only notice has been issued. Even otherwise, it is submitted that in light of the statutory - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19039 WP No. 12557 of 2025 scheme, the remedy, if any, or legal grievance, is a matter that could be raised under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 and reiterated by several judgments thereafter has stated that once the statutory scheme is provided for and an alternative remedy exists, particularly, in the context of SARFAESI Act, the Court should not interfere. 4. It is noticed that the grievance sought to be made out is a matter that could be raised, if permissible, by recourse under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Taking note of the considered view of the Apex Court, no ground is made out to depart from the requirement of petitioner and borrowers to take recourse to the substantive remedy as are available to them as per law under the special statute. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19039 WP No. 12557 of 2025 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and keeping open the contentions of the petitioner, the petition is disposed off with the above observations. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR