- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22346 WP No. 16460 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16460 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHARADAMMA C B W/O LATE SRI. C.B. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O VAMSHI KRISHNA NILAYA NO.231/1, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, B BLOCK, DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE DAVANAGERE 577 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KANAKA PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITA DOOR NO. 657/1A, I FLOOR (REGISTER UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1959) MANDIPETE, DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE 577001 REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 04.08.2022 ISSUED UNDER THE SEC.13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 AS PER ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BY HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22346 WP No. 16460 of 2022 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 correctness of the Demand Notice at Annexure-'E' dated 04.08.2022 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Various contentions have been raised regarding the procedural lapse, including the correctness of classifying loan as 'Non Performing Asset' (NPA). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner ought to be relegated to avail of the substantive remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22346 WP No. 16460 of 2022 remedy before the Debts 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 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22346 WP No. 16460 of 2022 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. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22346 WP No. 16460 of 2022 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." 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 two weeks from today. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22346 WP No. 16460 of 2022 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. 8. 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 VGR