- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24020 WP No. 18030 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18030 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ASHWIN .L AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMIKANTHAN, R/AT NO.948, VIJAYNAGARA, BCCHS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 062. 2. K. GOWTHAMI, W/O ASHWIN .L, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.948, VIJAYNAGARA, BCCHS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 062. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND: THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NO.2/3 RAJA BUILDING, N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24020 WP No. 18030 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 06/06/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO. OR/UB1/ARB/BNG/150/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY AND DECLARE THAT THE SAID NOTICE IS NOT BINDING UPON THE PETITIONER BEING ISSUED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND ETC., 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 The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the possession notice dated 06.06.2025 at Annexure - A issued by the respondent - Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. Certain other reliefs are sought as well. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various other contentions including that the procedure - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24020 WP No. 18030 of 2025 preceding 13(4) notice have not been adhered to and there was no notice. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantive remedy lies under Section 17 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 Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioners 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:24020 WP No. 18030 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:24020 WP No. 18030 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 the light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioners are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24020 WP No. 18030 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 the 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 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 that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the DRAT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24020 WP No. 18030 of 2025 10. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36