- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17579 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SURYAKANTH PATIL SON OF LATE S R PATIL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 327, ASHIYANA, CHANNAMMANAKERE ACTHUKATTU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU 560 085. REPTD BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI V PRATHAP, SON OF LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 122, 18TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN ROAD, J P NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T N VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR SRI GURURAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, NO. 15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 of 2025 BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAY S, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT-2; R1 - SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF NO SGR/AZ/L-442/371A/2025-26 SALE DTD. 17.05.2025 UNDER RULE 8(6) AND 9(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST ENFORCEMENT RULES, 2002 AND HAVE FIXED THE DATE OF AUCTION ON 20.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 BANK VIDE ANNX-A. 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 Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ to set aside the notice at Annexure-A dated 17.05.2025 whereby the auction is fixed on 20.06.2025. Petitioner has also called in question the validity of the possession notices at Annexures-B and C dated 11.03.2025 and 27.05.2025 respectively. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there has been previous litigations and insofar as the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 of 2025 settlement offered by the petitioner, there was no consensus. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner offers to pay and seeks for some indulgence by respondent No.2. 4. 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: "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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 of 2025 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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 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." 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 of 2025 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21442 WP No. 17579 of 2025 9. Needless to state it is open to the petitioner and the Bank to work out settlement, if any. In light of the disposal of the writ petition, it is observed that though the respondent may go ahead with the auction, there should be no confirmation for a period of two weeks from today. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP