Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38191 (KAR)

MRS. SARASWATI MADIWALE TAMBE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/110111/2025 · 2025-12-30

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746 WP No. 110111 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 110111 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MRS. SARASWATI MADIWALE TAMBE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O KELAGINA ONI, ANCHE ARAVATAGI, VTC AMBOLI, POST ARAVATAGI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD, D.C. COUMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001. 3. THE COMPANY SECRETARY, M/S EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED [CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (CIN) IS L65191TN1993PLC025280 AND ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 25280] 4TH FLOOR, PHASE II, SPENCER PLAZA NO.769, MOUNT ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, INDIA–600002. 4. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED MAIN BRANCH OFFICE, UNAKAL, NEAR SIDDAPPAJA CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.30 16:57:31 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746 WP No. 110111 of 2025 TEMPLE, OPP.BRTS BUS STOP, UNAKAL TQ. HUBBALLI, DISTRICT DHARWAD-580020. 5. THE BRANCH AUTHORIZED MANAGER, M/S EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED NEAR C.B.T, DHARWAD, TQ. AND DISTRICT DHARWAD-580001. 6. SHRI MADIWALA HANUMANTAPPA TAMBE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KELAGINA ONI, ANCHE ARAVATAGI, VTC AMBOLI, POST ARAVATAGI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007. 7. SMT. YALLAVVA HANUMANTAPPA TAMBE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O KELAGINA ONI, ANCHE ARAVATAGI, VTC AMBOLI, POST ARAVATAGI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE BEARING NO.NIL, DATED 21/08/2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND POSSESSION NOTICE BEARING NO.NIL DATED 21/08/2025, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746 WP No. 110111 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The petitioner has challenged the possession notice, bearing No.Nil, dated 21.08.2025, issued by respondent No.4 under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20021. 2. When this Court queried the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how a writ petition is maintainable against respondents No.3, 4 and 5, as they are neither State nor other authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2022, and therefore a writ petition is maintainable. 3. Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 are constituents of private small finance bank, which is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State. None of the fundamental rights of the petitioner are violated by the respondents No.3, 4 and 5, but they have exercised rights conferred on them under SARFAESI Act, 2002. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, provides a 1 For short, ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746 WP No. 110111 of 2025 remedy of filing application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable against them. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another2, has held that a writ petition challenging actions initiated under the Provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against a private bank, is not maintainable. 4. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 5. It is open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE PMP, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9 2 SLP (Civil) Nos.22021-22022 of 2022