- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17626 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAVISH S/O LATE ANANTARAMA SETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SMT K REKHA DO LATE K.R KANTARAJ W/O RAVISH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SMT K KANAKARATNA W/O LATE K.R KANTARAJ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS ALL ARE R/A : R AND R ASSOCIATES No.50/2, ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR, (NORTH SIDE) AND FOURTH FLOOR, RESERVOIR STREET NEAR NETKELLAPA CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAVEEN R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASST GENERAL MANAGER / CHIEF MANAGER ARMB BRANCH, 4TH FLOOR (VIJAYA BANK TOWERS) NOW BANK OF BARODA TRINITY CIRCLE MG ROAD, BANGALORE -560001. Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 2. ASST GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CO-OPERATION NO 8TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070. 3. ASST GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK, RATNA VILLAS ROAD BASAVANGUDI, OPP SHAMMANA PARK BANGALORE -560004. 4. M N MANJUNATH S/O LATE NARAYAN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.663, 2ND CROSS, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE -560 082. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND STAY THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS PUBLIC NOTICE DATED ON 22.05.2025 IN INDIAN EXPRESS AND AUCTION DATED 24.06.2025 UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF SARFAESI ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE -G ISSUED BY THE R1 AS CONTRARY TO LAW AND UNENFORCEABLE AND VOID. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the validity of the auction proceedings fixed on 24.06.2025, various contentions have been raised including the procedural violations as regards to proceedings under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act. 2. Petitioners submit that apart from the contentions raised, petitioners willing to satisfy the claim of the respondent - bank. 3. Learned counsel – Sri Vignesh Shetty, appearing on behalf of the respondent - bank submits that the contentions of the petitioners are to be raised before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 4. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 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. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 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 contention raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 7. In light of petitioner being relegated to avail of the substantive remedy, the respondent bank though is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22026 WP No. 17626 of 2025 permitted to go ahead with the auction is not to issue sale certificate for a period of four 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. 9. Needless to state it is open for the petitioner to approach the bank and place a proposal for which may be considered by the bank appropriately. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MR