- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 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. 17627 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SURESH K.S, S/O SHIVALINGAPPA K.P, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SMT. ANUSUYA K.R, W/O SURESH K.S, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA K.P, S/O PARVATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI. GANESH K.S, S/O SHIVALINGAPPA K.P, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. KANGUVALLI AT POST, HOSADURGA THALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527. 5. MR. KESHAVAMURTHY C, S/O CHANNABASAPPA K, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO. ASHA TEXTILES, SHRI GURUOPPATTINA SWAMY MATT, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 HOSADURGA - 577 527. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHEELA DEEPAK, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SEETHARAGHAVA SOUHARDA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITA, BUS STAND ROAD, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527, REPRESENTED ITS BRANCH MANAGER SRI. RAVI NAIK. ALSO AT NO. 27, SAI KRUPA, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJI NAGAR, 6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CJM AT BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1960/2024 U/SEC. 14 OF THE SARFESI ACT, 2002 AS PER ANNEXURE-B 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.1960/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various legal contentions and submits that the petitioners have paid substantial amounts as evidenced from the accounts statement and if petitioners are granted further time, they would clear the amounts due. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised various contentions including that the substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and petitioners may be relegated to avail of such substantive remedy. 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 petitioners to seek for substantive - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 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 exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 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 petitioners are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 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. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that the Bank would be permitted to go ahead with the auction but there would be no confirmation and the petitioners may have recourse to the substantive remedy. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 In light of said submission, the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and seek for substantive relief within a period of 15 days from today. Accordingly in light of the undertaking, there would be protection for the petitioners of not confirming the sale for a period of 15 days within which it is open for the petitioners to seek for substantive relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21526 WP No. 17627 of 2025 10. Needless to state if no action is taken to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within the time stipulated, the benefit granted in terms of this order stands discharged. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK