- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16981 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.PURUSHOTHAM P S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 46 YEARS 2. SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 40 YEARS 3. SRI GOPAL P S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.22, GATTIGERE, BEML LAYOUT 3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K B MOUNESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJETHA R NAIK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NO. 10/3/8, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REP BY THE DOR Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES III MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003 3. M/S GURU RAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA (REGISTERED CO-OPERATIVE BANK) NO. 15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, NETAKALLAPPA CIRCLE BASAVANGUDI BENGALURU-560004 R/BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, LEARNED ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VIKRAM UNNIRAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 30/05/2025 VIDE SGR/AZ/469/I 121-118-119-121-120/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N IN SO FOR PETITIONER CONCERN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for setting aside of the Possession Notice at Annexure-'N' dated 30.05.2025. The petitioners have also sought for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider their representation at Annexures-'P1' to 'P3' and grant relief of One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) to them. 2. The petitioners have raised various contentions regarding the legality of the procedure including that the correct Statement of Account is not made available. It is further contended that the respondent Bank may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for OTS Scheme. 3. Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Bank submits that there is a substantive remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 4. The representations of petitioners at Annexures-'P1' to 'P3' is general in nature and if the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 petitioners would make an offer for settlement, the same may be considered as per the Regulations of the respondent Bank simultaneous with the proceedings 5. 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 petitioners to seek for substantive 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 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 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 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 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." 6. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 raised by the petitioners, are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 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 the sides are kept open. 8. 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. 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioners to avail of the 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 petitioners may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21276 WP No. 16981 of 2025 10. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR