- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23485 WP No. 12565 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12565 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. NAZEER BEDRODY, S/O. B. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. R/AT. NO.2-133, BEDRODI HOUSE, VALALU POST, UPPINANGADY, BHAJATHUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 241. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVITHA N, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ARMB, 3RD FLOOR, KARNATAKA BANK BUILDING KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU - 575 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE VACATING NOTICE BEARING REF NO. ARMB.MNG.MA- 1457.OR.12.2025-26 ISSUED BY KARNATAKA BANK LTD DATED 21.04.2025 AT MANGALURU VIDE ANNX-A (IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERN) AND ETC., Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23485 WP No. 12565 of 2025 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 1. The petitioner has called in question the notice for vacating the premises at Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the interim order passed on 24.04.2025 has not been complied with. 3. Memo filed by learned counsel for the respondent to such effect is taken on record. 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23485 WP No. 12565 of 2025 "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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23485 WP No. 12565 of 2025 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23485 WP No. 12565 of 2025 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 regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 7. 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. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK