- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18432 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11989 OF 2025 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 18432/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. UMESH R., S/O G RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, EMAIL:UMESHR151967@GMAIL.COM MOBILE NO. 9980034810 2. SMT. S P SUMITHRA W/O UMESH R, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS EMAIL:SUMITHRASP201970@GMAIL.COM MOBILE NO. 9980034810 PETITIONERS NO.1 & 2 COMMONLY R/AT SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, NEAR MUKHTHAMBA CHOULTRY, GEDDALAHALLI MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24-B GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM TAMILNADU - 612001 EMAIL:CRMD@CITYUNIONBANK.IN MOBILE NO:4352432322 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / SENIOR MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION / LETTER DTD. 22.05.2025 FOR REGULARIZING THE LOAN ACCOUNT AS PER ANNX-A. IN WP NO. 11989/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. UMESH. R S/O G. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, EMAIL:UMESHR151967@GMAIL.COM MOBILE NO 9980034810 2. SMT. S. P. SUMITHRA, W/O UMESH. R, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, EMAIL:SUMITHRASP201970@GMAIL.COM MOBILE NO 9980034810 PETITIONERS NO.1 & 2 COMMONLY R/AT SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, NEAR MUKHTHAMBA CHOULTRY, GEDDALAHALLI MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU 572102. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 AND: 1. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED CREDIT RECOVERY & MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU - 612001 EMAIL:CRMD@CITYUNIONBANK.IN MOBILE NO 4352432322 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/SENIOR MANAGER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION / LETTER DTD. 10.03.2025 FOR REGULARIZING THE LOAN ACCOUNT AS PER ANNX-A. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER In W.P.No.11989/2025, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent - Bank to consider the representation dated 10.03.2025 at Annexure-A whereby the petitioner has sought for an opportunity to regularise the loan within a period of 6 months. Petitioner has also sought for setting - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 aside of the auction sale notice dated 28.03.2025 at Annexure-B whereby the auction was fixed on 23.04.2025. W.P.No. 18432/2025 has been filed by the same petitioner seeking for setting aside of the auction sale notice at Annexure-B dated 05.06.2025 fixing the date of auction as 04.07.2025. 2. Sri. Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank submits that in W.P.No.11989/2025, the petitioner was granted with an interim order subject to certain conditions and stay of auction sale notice was also granted subject to fulfillment of certain conditions of deposit which have not been fulfilled. It is submitted that without revealing the said facts, W.P.No.18432/2025 has been filed. It is submitted that in light of non-compliance of the conditions of the interim order in W.P.No.11989/2025, petitioner ought not to be extended any indulgence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 3. 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 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." 4. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court and in light of the factual matrix, the petitions are disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, if so advised. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22675 WP No. 18432 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11989 of 2025 before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP