- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:517 WP No. 34414 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 34414 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SAVANA VERMAN D/O LATE. SRI. JYESHT VERMAN, W/O SRI. NATARAJAN KARTHIK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO.66, 16TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, JAYALAKSHAMMA LAYOUT, PAPAREDDYPALYA, BENGALURU 560 072. ALSO AT CARNEGIE-3163 VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKHIL P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GAYATHRI YASHRAJ D/O LATE SRI JYESHT VERMAN W/O YASHRAJ RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A FLAT NO. 202, 6TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040 2. INDRA VERMAN S/O LATE SRI JYESHT VERMAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A NO.66, 16TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, JAYALAKSHAMMA LAYOUT, PAPAREDDYPALYA, BENGALURU 560 072. Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:517 WP No. 34414 of 2024 3. ADITI VERMAN W/O. LATE SRI JYESHT VERMAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. AGNISHWAATTH MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS R/A NO.66, 16TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, JAYALAKSHAMMA LAYOUT, PAPAREDDYPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 072. 4. BHARATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD GROUND FLOOR, R.R. PLAZA, GOVINDARAJ NAGAR, 'B' BLOCK, KHB COLONY, NEAR A2B HOTEL, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU 560 040. 5. YASHRAJ RAMAKRISHNA PARTNER, M/S INART INFRASTRUCTURE NO.72, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR BCC LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040 ALSO AT NO.202, CHIRAG DEEP APARTMENT, 6TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040 6. M/S INART INFRASTRUCTURE NO.72, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR BCC LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 040 REPRESENTED BY MR. YASHRAJ RAMAKRISHNA AND MRS. SOUMYA 7. M/S INART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.72, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR BCC LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 040 REPRESENTED BY MR. YASHRAJ RAMAKRISHNA AND GAYATHRI YASHRAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:517 WP No. 34414 of 2024 8. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA POST BOX NO. 5467, 10/3/8, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWAR BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-4 UNDER SECTION 13(4) ISSUED UNDER SARFEASI ACT DTD. 06.11.2024 PRODUCED AS ANNX-H1 AND THE CORRIGENDUM TO SECTION 13(4) DTD. 08.11.2024 BEARING REF NO. BCB/HAM/RECOVERY AND LEGAL /259/2024 PRODUCED AS ANNX-H2 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO SECURE THE ENDS OF THE JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the 4th respondent - Bank submits that the petitioner not being a borrower or a person who has mortgaged the property in question to the Bank, is before this Court questioning the possession notice dated 08.11.2024 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, when admittedly the Bank has proceeded to take action for recovering the outstanding loan amount along - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:517 WP No. 34414 of 2024 with accrued interest, from the respondents No.5, 6 and 7, who are the partners and joint borrowers. Learned counsel submits that outstanding loan amount is more than Rs.4 Crores and Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’), clearly provides that any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor is required to make an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, having jurisdiction in the matter and therefore this writ petition is not maintainable. 2. In the case of AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER /VS./ MATHEW.K.C, - (2018) 3 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, without considering the objects and reasons behind enactment of SARFAESI Act and without noticing and discussing the well-settled law laid down by Supreme Court on interference in writ jurisdiction where - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:517 WP No. 34414 of 2024 alternative statutory remedies are available to aggrieved, granting ex-parte interim relief assigning special reasons. It was therefore held that such approach of the High Court was not proper and therefore could not be approved. 3. Having regard to the settled position of law that even when a person who is not a borrower seeks to raise a challenge to the measures taken by the secured creditor to recover the outstanding debt, he/she is required to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal alone. In the circumstances, such writ petitions cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL