- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24714 WP No. 23724 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 23724 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT M K MEENAKSHI W/O B H JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT "SREE VEERABHADRESHWARA KRUPA", 5TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA EAST, TUMAKURU KARNATAKA-572 102 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI PARSHWANATHA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA NO.2558/2970, 8TH MAIN ASHOKANAGAR, TUMAKURU CITY, TUMAKURU KARNATAKA-572 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B S MAHENDRA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24714 WP No. 23724 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION / LETTER DATED 15.07.2024 FOR REGULARIZING THE LOAN ACCOUNT AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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 challenged the validity of the sale notice dated 30.07.2024. 2. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has filed a memo and submits that pursuant to the sale notice, sale did not progress to an advanced stage and sale could not be held because of the interim order passed in the present matter. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that substantive remedy available is before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner despite the order dated 30.06.2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24714 WP No. 23724 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that they would take further steps in accordance with law and in the event the petitioner is so aggrieved, he may approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and not approach this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. Taking note of the availability of substantive remedy, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. 7. 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:24714 WP No. 23724 of 2024 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24714 WP No. 23724 of 2024 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 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." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24714 WP No. 23724 of 2024 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. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 9. 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. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP