- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19754 WP No. 13195 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 13195 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S PRABHUDASS CONTRACTORS BY PROPRIETOR K PRABHUDAS S/O KANAKARAJU AGED 52 YEARS MUNESHWARA EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 047 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PREETHI KAREDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA ASSET RECEOVERY BRANCH 1234, 1ST FLOOR 4TH MAIN OPP. TO CHANDRA LAYOUT BUS STOP BENGALURU-560 040 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA NO.32 S.C. ROAD GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009 Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19754 WP No. 13195 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY PETITIONER FROM RESPONDENT BANK BEARING NO. 127024010000003; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 01/02/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXIX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN CC NO. 50215/2024 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27/02/2025 VIDE ANNX-B AND 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 petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-A passed by the XXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, as regards taking over of possession. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid subsequent to filing of the writ petition and the conditions imposed in the interim order could not be complied due to bonafide reasons. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19754 WP No. 13195 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as against the order passed under Section 14 which could be stated to be a measure in connection with the proceedings under Section 13 (4), remedy available is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Stayawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 and reiterated subsequently, which is settled position where specific procedure is provided for under the statute, the court ought not to entertain the writ petition at mere asking. 5. In light of substantive alternate remedy as noticed above, petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as against the impugned order. 6. In light of disposal of the writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent-bank - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19754 WP No. 13195 of 2025 not to take any precipitative steps for a period of two weeks from today. 7. 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