- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19269 WP No. 15336 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 15336 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRAMOD M P, S/O PRAKASH M AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. SRI PRADEEP M P S/O PRAKASH M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205, BEML 5TH STAGE RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU - 560 098 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA R P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S AXIS BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT TRISHUL, 3RD FLOOR, OPP. SAMARTHESHWAR TEMPLE NEAR LAW GARDEN, ELLISBRIDGE, Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19269 WP No. 15336 of 2025 AHMEDABAD - 380 006 ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT FLOT NO.41 SESHADRI ROAD ANANDRAO CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 009 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI FRANCIES XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 782/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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 called in question the validity of the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.782/2025 by the XLVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, copy of such order is enclosed at Annexure-A. 2. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioners including that the proceedings for recovery of possession have been initiated without following the procedure contemplated under the law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19269 WP No. 15336 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for respondent-bank relies on the order passed in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent- bank that proceedings for taking physical possession by order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and proceedings under Section 13 (4) are matters that could be raised before the Tribunal under Section 17 as observed by the Apex Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra). 5. Learned counsel for petitioners pleads undue hardship. However, taking note of the statutory scheme and 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, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. It is noticed that several factual contentions as well raised by the petitioner which are matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19269 WP No. 15336 of 2025 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 sides are kept open. 8. In light of disposal of the 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. 9. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the order after retaining the xerox copies of the same for the purpose of reference. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP