- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17878 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT PUNITHA MUNESHA W/O MUNESHA VENKAT, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SRI MUNESHA VENKAT S/O GIDDAPPA VENKAT, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 RESIDING AT NO.106, TANISHKA MANSION, MARATHAHALLI, ANAND NAGAR, MARATHAHALLI COLONY, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 037 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADESH G. NASHI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S TUMKUR VEERASHAIVA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 AUTHORISED OFFICER/ MANAGER OFFICE AT SS PURAM, TUMAKURU-572 102 2. SMT SHWETHA S W/O MANJUNATH K N, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, RESIDING AT NO.29, 19TH CROSS, NEAR OMSHAKTHI TEMPLE, KAGGADASAPURA, C V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 093 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V LOKESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS:- (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR AN ORDER QUASHING ANNEXURE A - SALE CERTIFICATE DT. 02.04.2025 REGISTERED ON 04.04.2025 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. INR-1-00135-2025-26 IN BOOK I IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR (INDRANAGAR), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 Sale Certificate dated 02.04.2025 registered on 04.04.2025 as also the validity of the Sale Notice dated 28.08.2024 and to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 declare the e-auction dated 20.09.2024 as illegal and violative of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as well as to direct the respondents to restrain from acting on the Sale Certificate dated 02.04.2025. 2. Various contentions have been raised including that the procedure stipulated under Section 13 has not been followed, there was no proper notice of auction as required. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent submits that the Sale Certificate has been issued. 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 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. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 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 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 petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. 7. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 8. Insofar as period prior to filing of the writ petition which would be a ground of limitation raised as objection before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is open for the petitioner to putforth the absence of knowledge regarding the proceedings of the respondent-Bank which may be taken note of appropriately while considering the point of limitation. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SMT PUNITHA MUNESHA AND ANOTHER VS. M/S TUMKUR VEERASHAIVA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ANOTHER] 25.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO Learned counsel for the Petitioners has moved a memo for being spoken to. He has pointed out that when the Court was relegating the Petitioners to avail substantive remedy, it ought to have given some time for the Petitioner to approach the DRT and protection till then. Taking note that the Petitioners were relegated to the DRT by way of substantive remedy, it would be appropriate to direct that the Respondent - Bank may not take any precipitate steps by two weeks from today. Needless to state that the protection granted would not be construed to be that this protection was granted considering the merits of the matter but it is only granted to enable the Petitioners to avail of substantive remedy without adjudication of the merits of the matter. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24511 WP No. 17878 of 2025 This order shall be read in Conjunction with the order dated 07.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.17878 of 2025. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1