- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 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. 32029 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR JOEL VARGHESE S/O A F VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A VILLA NO.15, 47/179-49 LORDS COTTATE PHASE-1 HEAVENLY HOME KARSHAKA ROAD GREEN GARDEN COLONY VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM-682023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADANAND SHASTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUNJAB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED REGISTERED INDIA OFFICE AT 9TH FLOOR, ANTRIKSH BHAVAN 22 KASTURBA, GANDHIMARG NEW DELHI-110001 BANGALORE HEAD OFFICE AT NO.40, 27TH CROSS ROAD 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560011. 2. MR MEMANA RAMACHANDRA SRINIVASA BHAT S/O M V RAMCHANDRA BHAT AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.502, MOSSACO APARTMENTS Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 of 2024 NEHRU AVENUE CROSS ROAD LALBAGH, MANGALORE-575003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE DATED 11-03-2024 AT ANNEXURE -A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/BANK TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 2. 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 sought for setting aside of the notice at Annexure-'A' dated 11.03.2024 which is styled as 'Notice for Sale of the Mortgaged Property'. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the auction sale at Annexure-'B' dated 30.10.2024 conducted by the respondent Bank. The petitioner has further sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to desist from making over the Sale Certificate in the name of third parties. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, including that there is an order of attachment as per the order of Arbitrator in CMA (Arb) No.683/2021 and it is accordingly - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 of 2024 submitted that the question of respondent Bank proceeding further does not arise. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the interim order passed by this Court on 28.11.2024 restraining the respondent No.1 not to issue the Sale Certificate was a conditional interim order and subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the outstanding amount that was due, within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, a memo dated 02.07.2025 has been filed submitting that such interim order has not been complied with. 3. Said submission is not controverted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank further submits that the Sale Certificate came to be issued after the public auction in favour of auction purchaser and after sale confirmation, Sale Certificate has also been registered on 30.01.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 of 2024 5. In light of the nature of contentions that have been raised, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. 6. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 of 2024 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. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 of 2024 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." 7. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23606 WP No. 32029 of 2024 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. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR