- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 955 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. GNANA SHALE EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST A REGISTERED TRUST REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.147/3 LAKSHMI NIVAS, SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI SRIDHAR NILAKANTA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SHI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUCO SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK HEAD OFFICE AT SUCO BHAVANA MOKA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BALLARY-583 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER SUCO SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025 HEAD OFFICE AT SUCO BHAVANA MOKA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BALLARY - 583 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 IN WRIT PETITION No.12557/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 05.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12557/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge, in paragraph Nos.3 to 6 has stated as under: "3. The Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyavati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 and reiterated by several judgments - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025 thereafter has stated that once the statutory scheme is provided for and an alternative remedy exists, particularly, in the context of SARFAESI Act, the Court should not interfere. 4. It is noticed that the grievance sought to be made out is a matter that could be raised, if permissible, by recourse under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Taking note of the considered view of the Apex Court, no ground is made out to depart from the requirement of petitioner and borrowers to take recourse to the substantive remedy as are available to them as per law under the special statute. 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and keeping open the contentions of the petitioner, the petition is disposed off with the above observations." 2. After some submissions, learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal to enable the appellant approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), urging all the pleas available to the appellant, both on facts and in law. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 / Bank states that symbolic possession of the mortgaged - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025 property has been taken on 19.06.2025. He also states that the respondent / Bank has to issue notice for sale, after 30 days from 19.06.2025. 4. In view of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47