- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 27540 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S YOGESH PHARMACEUTICALS NO. 125/3, 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, SRI BALAJI COMPLEX, SULTANPET, BANGALORE- 560 053 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. SUDHA L. 2. SMT.SUDHA L PROPRIETRIX M/S. YOGESH PHARMACEUTICALS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT 19, BENAKA NIVAS, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 062 3. SRI. SRIKANTH RAJ G. R. S/O. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT 19, BENAKA NIVAS, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 062. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.N.ANANTHANARAYANA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CANARA BANK CHICPET-1 BRANCH, NO. 349, KORMARLA TOWERS 1ST FLOOR, OTC ROAD, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 BENGALURU- 560 053 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024, IN S.A NO. 186/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, 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 Petitioners have sought for setting aside of the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru in S.A. No. 186/2023 at Annexure - A. 2. In terms of the order at Annexure-A, S.A. No. 186/2023 came to be dismissed while upholding the possession certificate under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act') dated 13.07.2023 as being valid and in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 due compliance of the provisions and the procedures made thereunder. 3. During the pendency of the present proceedings, interim relief has been granted including re-delivery of possession. Petitioners are stated to have made payments, which payments are not in dispute. Though several legal contentions have been raised, it is noticed that as against the impugned order, an appeal before the DRAT would lie under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. 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: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 "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:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 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 light of availability of substantive remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and noticing that there are disputes relating to the amount due as claimed by the respondent - Bank, which is disagreed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy. Noticing that the petitioners have been put back - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 into possession pursuant to the interim order, while taking note that the petitioners have been relegated to avail of substantive remedy, 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 the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. 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. 7. 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20526 WP No. 27540 of 2024 8. Accordingly petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP