- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 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. 27786 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ROOPLA NAIKA S/O ESHWARA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. SMT. SUSHILA BAI. R W/O ROOPLA NAIKA AGED 34 YEARS 3. SMT. ROOPLI BAI E W/O ESHWARA NAIKA AGED 62 YEARS ALL PETITIONERS NO. 1, 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO. 487, NEAR SRI SEVALAL AND MARIYAMMA TEMPLE BILKI VILLAGE BILIKE GRAMA PANCHAYAT SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN 577412. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ S JAIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S MANAPPURAM HOME FINANCE LTD., HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT M Y KRISHNAMURHTY COMPLEX NO. 83, L L R ROAD BESIDE SLN RADIO AND ELECTRONICS SHIVAMOGGA 577201 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 BRANCH MANAGER MR. NITHISH KUMAR N R SON OF MR RAJA RAO N AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHENDRA B S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD. 05.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNX-E UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SAID NOTICE AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. 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 petitioners have sought for setting aside of the notice at Annexure-'E' dated 05.04.2024 issued by the respondent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various contentions including that the respondent intend to dispossess the petitioners from the residential house which is not a part of the property that is subject matter in the Mortgage Deed dated 24.08.2022. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that as regards any measure under Section 13, the appropriate remedy is before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of 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 petitioner to seek for substantive remedy before the Debts 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 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:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 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 light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 raised by the petitioners are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 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 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 petitioners to avail of 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23629 WP No. 27786 of 2024 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. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR