- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9465 OF 2015 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 50267 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) IN W.P.NO.9465/2015 BETWEEN 1. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE SUMERMAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SRI ARVIND KUMAR S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 4. SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.209 A K JAIN PARIVA PALACE, V V PURAM, BANGALORE. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.D. SURANA., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 BANGALORE OFFICER, UNIT NO.703-704, 7TH FLOOR, NORTH BOCK, MANIPAL CETRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 2. SRI MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, NO.205, E-1, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH MAIN, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR BANGALORE. …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM SELLING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN PURSUANCE OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 22.02.2015 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN W.P.NO.50267/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE SUMERMAL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SRI ARVIND KUMAR S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.209 A K JAIN PARIVA PALACE, V V PURAM, BANGALORE. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.D. SURANA., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD BANGALORE OFFICER, UNIT NO.703-704, 7TH FLOOR, NORTH BOCK, MANIPAL CETRE, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 2. SRI MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.205, E-1, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH MAIN, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR BANGALORE-560055 3. RECOVERY OFFICER-1 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, BENGALURU, JEVAN MANGAL BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING THE 1ST & 3RD RESPONDENT FROM SELLING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN PURSUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS NO. DCP/13243 IN O.A.NO.119/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT AS PER PROCLAMATION DATED 17.09.2019 (ANNEXURE-J) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.06.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner in W.P.No.9465/2024 is before this Court seeking for the following relief: Issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the R1 from selling the schedule property in pursuance of the sale notice dated 22.02.2015 Copy of which is produced as Annexure-H and to grant such other relief’s in the interest of justice. 2. The Petitioner in W.P.No.50267/2019 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: Issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the R1 & R3 from selling the schedule property in pursuance No. DCP/13243 in O.A.No.119/2011 on the file of the Third Respondent as per proclamation dated 17.09.2019 (Annexure-J), in the interest of justice. 3. The facts in WP No.9465 of 2015; 3.1. The petitioners claim that the respondent No.2- Sri.Mahesh Kumar had entered into an agreement dated 11.04.2005 to sell his property described in the schedule to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 petition for consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000/-. The sale deed not having been executed, the agreement of sale being governed by an Arbitration Clause, initially the petitioners had invoked the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A & C Act, 1996”) and filed A.A. No.41 of 2007 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seeking interim measures where the respondent No. 2, Sri.Mahesh Kumar was restrained from alienating the property and the parties were directed to be maintained in status quo till the conclusion of the Arbitration proceeding. 3.2. An Arbitrator having been appointed, the Arbitrator passed an award under Section 31 of the A & C Act, 1996 on 13.03.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 performance but directing Sri.Mahesh Kumar to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.One crore together with interest at 10% per annum from 11.04.2005 upto the date of the award and at 15% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. 3.3. In pursuance thereof, the learned Arbitrator directed that the scheduled properties would stand attached till all payments under the award are made, and as such, the said properties were charged for the payment due to the claimant. 3.4. The petitioners, on account of the refusal of the relief of the specific performance, have filed A.S.No.42 of 2012, which is pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. It is alleged that in violation of the interim orders in A.A.No.41 of 2007, Sri.Mahesh Kumar had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 respondent No.1-Bank viz., Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as “HUDCO”). In view thereof, alleging that there is a violation of the interim order and contempt of the orders of the City Civil Court. The petitioners have filed a petition in Misc.No.1082 of 2010, which is also pending consideration. 3.5. HUDCO is stated to have sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,75,00,000/- on the deposit of title deeds relating to said property. The loan amount has been disbursed in favour of M/s Avva Developers of which Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his wife are partners. The deposit of title deeds made on 30.11.2007, was subsequent to the interim order dated 23.08.2007, and therefore, it is alleged that the same is in gross violation of the interim orders passed in OS No.41 of 2007. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 3.6. HUDCO having published a possession notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act, 2002”). On 08.01.2015, the petitioners had objected to the same, thereafter HUDCO has published a notice of sale in a newspaper-“Times of India” on 22.2.2015. 3.7. On the filing of the writ petition by order dated 11.03.2015, this Court had directed HUDCO not to sell the petitioner's property which order has been continued from time to time. It is in that background that the petitioners are before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Facts in 50267 of 2019. 4.1. The petitioners in this writ petition are the same as those in WP No.9465 of 2015. The respondent No.1 in this petition is HUDCO, and the respondent No.2 is Sri.Mahesh Kumar and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 the respondent No.3 is the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRT”) 4.2. Insofar as the creation of a mortgage and the issuance of a sale notice are the same. Upon the sale notice having been issued, the petitioners had issued a legal notice on 06.02.2015, placing on record their right in the property. 4.3. The petitioners contend that they came to know of HUDCO having initiated Recovery Proceedings in O.A.No.119 of 2011 before the DRT. The proclamation had been issued on 17.09.2019 by the Recovery Officer, and as such, it is contended that the recovery proceedings initiated in Rrcovery proceedings No.13243 in pursuance of the award in O.A. No.119 of 2011 should cause injustice to the petitioners affecting their claims over the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 subject property, since their claim for specific performance is still pending for consideration in a proceeding filed under Section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996 challenging the award of the learned Arbitrator. It is in that background that the petitioners are before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 5. The submission of Sri.P.D.Suvarna., learned counsel for the petitioner, is that; 5.1. The agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner being prior to the mortgage documents in favour of HUDCO, the mortgage in favour of HUDCO being created in violation of the orders passed under Section 9 proceedings in A.A.No. 41 of 2007. The contempt proceedings have been filed, which are pending. Arbitral proceedings have been filed for specific performance, though Specific perdormance was refused and order directing - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 Mahesh Kumar to pay a sum of Rs.One crore with applicable interest (supra) and has directed a charge to be created on the subject property. The petitioner's interest would be adversely affected, if HUDCO were to bring the property for sale. 5.2. His submission is that, apart from the charge which has been created in favour of the petitioners, insofar as the refusal of the relief of specific performance, the petitioners have challenged the same by filing a proceedings under Section 34 of the A & C Act 1996, where the petitioners are more than likely to succeed and as such he submits that, if HUDCO were to sell the subject property and the petitioners were to succeed in those proceedings, the petitioners will be left with no relief or recourse since a third party interest would have been created. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 5.3. Insofar as charge which has been created, he submits that even if the petitioners were to fail in the proceedings under Section 34 of the A & C Act 1996, even then they would be entitled to recover the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest as regards which the charge has been created. Even to enforce this charge, it would be required that HUDCO does not sell the property and on that grounds, he submits that both the petitions are required to be allowed. 6. On service of notice, HUDCO has entered appearance and is represented by Sri.Varadaraj R. Havaldar., learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank would submits that; 6.1. The relief praying for a prohibition of selling the property in WP No.9465 of 2015 is not maintainable. Such action has been taken by HUDCO under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 following a due procedure. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, the only recourse available to the petitioner is one which is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A writ petition under Article 226 and 227 is not maintainable. 6.2. The rights of the petitioners are inchoate inasmuch as their right is only under the agreement of sale, which is required to be adjudicated as on the date on which a mortgage was created by Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his wife, what existed was only an agreement of sale which would not confer any right, title or interest on the petitioners to stop HUDCO from bringing the property for sale to recover its money. 6.3. The mortgage has been created as regards the loan availed by M/s Avva Developers of which Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his wife Smt.Mahadevi - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 are partners. The loan having been disbursed to M/s Avva Developers on the security of the aforesaid property, as regard which the property is one of the securities. HUDCO is entitled to exercise its rights as regard to security. 6.4. The dispute between the petitioners, Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his wife is one between themselves as regard which HUDCO is not concerned. The proceedings in A.A.No.41 of 2007 was between the petitioners and Sri.Mahesh Kumar as regard to which HUDCO was not a party nor is it a party in the arbitration proceedings. Thus, neither the interim orders passed in A.A.No.41 of 2007 nor the award passed by the Arbitrator is binding on the Court. 6.5. The petitioners, knowing fully well of a mortgage having been created by a written - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 instrument which is registered, had not brought it to the knowledge of the concerned in either the Section 9 proceeding or the Arbitral proceedings. The deposit of title deeds having been registered in the office of Sub-Register of Basavanagudi on 01.12.2007, prior to the award passed by the Arbitrator. The security created under the said mortgage would be binding on the petitioners. 6.6. His submission is also that a statutory notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 13, had been issued to Sri.Mahesh Kumar, and thereafter, the possession notice was published. The action taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is one which is authorised and such action would enure to the benefit of HUDCO, which cannot - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 be challenged in the manner in which it has been done. 6.7. As regards to sale proceedings, he submits that there being an amount of Rs.1,51,61,589/- along with interest and cost which was due, HUDCO initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT in Bangalore under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “RDB, Act 1993”) which ended in an award in favor of HUDCO and a recovery certificate was issued to HUDCO in terms of Section 25 of the Act. 6.8. The recovery officer, being authorised to execute the recovery certificate action taken in accordance with law, the petitioners cannot find fault with it, and the only remedy available to the petitioners is an Appeal under Section 30 of the RDB Act, 1993 and not by way of a writ petition before this Court. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 6.9. On facts, he submits that though Sri.Mahesh Kumar had allegedly agreed to sell certain properties to the petitioners. Sri.Mahesh Kumar was not the owner of the properties as on that day. In fact, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 01.07.2005 as regards the property bearing No.13/1, old No.357, VV Puram, Bangalore by one Ciciliamma @ Sushila. 6.10. On 23.09.2005, the agreement of sale dated 11.04.2005 had been cancelled and Sri.Mahesh Kumar had agreed to pay the advance amount along with 18% interest per annum. 6.11. It is only thereafter on 20.06.2006 that a sale deed came to be executed by Smt.Anjali Prabhakar & another in favour of Sri.Mahesh Kumar as regards property bearing No.13, old No.355, VV Puram, Bengaluru. 6.12. It is on 01.04.2007 that M/s Avva Developer of which Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his wife - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 Smt.Mahadevi are partners had approached HUDCO for sanction of loan. Thus, he submits as on date on which Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his Wife had approached HUDCO for a loan, the agreement of sale between Sri.Mahesh Kumar and the petitioners had been cancelled, and as regards this, he places reliance on the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, where even according to the petitioners, the amount of Rs.One crore was not repaid by Sri.Mahesh Kumar in terms of the cancellation dated 23.09.2005. 6.13. He submits that the learned Arbitrator has categorically come to a conclusion that the agreement of sale between the parties has been cancelled and denied a relief of specific performance to the petitioners and directed refund of the monies. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 6.14. Thus, no claim could be made by the petitioners as regard the properties. The only claim that could be made by them was as regards the refund of the monies as directed by the learned Arbitrator. On these grounds, he submits that the rights which have been exercised by HUDCO, being statutory rights, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief which is sought. 7. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner had filed the writ Petition in WP No.24022 of 2021 on behalf of Sri.Mahesh Kumar but has chosen not to enter an appearance in this matter. Though they were linked together and subsequently delinked. 8. Heard Sri.P.D.Surana., learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.Varadaraj R.Havaldar., learned counsel appearing for HUDCO and perused papers. 9. The points that would arise for consideration are; 1. Whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could intercede and/or - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 intervene with action taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and RDB Act, 1993? 2. Whether the respondents can be restrained from selling the property as regards which a Recovery Certificate has been issued by the DRT and the Recovery Officer has taken action? 3. What Order? 10. I answer above points are as under; 11. Answer to point No.1: Whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could intercede and/or intervene with action taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and RDB Act, 1993? 11.1. The facts are not in dispute in as much as no one has disputed that Sri.Mahesh Kumar and his wife had mortgaged the property to HUDCO and availed a loan. 11.2. What is in dispute is the transaction between the petitioners and Sri.Mahesh Kumar in as much as though there was an agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner and - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 Sri.Mahesh Kumar on 11.04.2005 as per the award of the Arbitrator, the same has been cancelled on 23.09.2005. Of course, this aspect is pending consideration in proceedings under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996. 11.3. Several submissions which have been made as regards the proceedings under Section 9 of the A & C Act, 1996 which had been initiated by the petitioners against Sri.Mahesh Kumar as also the Arbitral proceedings which had been initiated. On the basis of Section 9 proceedings, it is contended that, there being an order of injunction, a mortgage could not have been affected. On the basis of the award, it is contended that a charge is created with regard to the properties, and therefore, HUDCO cannot bring the property for sale. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 11.4. Initially, HUDCO had taken action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to enforce security interest. 11.5. Action being taken under Section 13 for enforcement of security interest, the only ground for challenge in relation thereto is in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act which relates to applications against measures to recover secured debts. Section 17 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 17. [Application against measures to recover secured debts.] (1)Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed,] [Substituted by the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004 (30 of 2004), Section 10, for "may prefer an appeal" (w.r.e.f. 21.6.2002).] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken: [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.] [Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section (1) of section 17.] (1A)[ An application under sub-section (1) shall be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; (b)where the secured asset is located; or (c)the branch or any other office of a bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.] (2)[ The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.] (3)[ If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management or restoration of possession, of the secured assets to the borrower or other aggrieved person, it may, by order,- (a)declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor as invalid; and (b)restore the possession of secured assets or management of secured assets to the borrower or such other aggrieved person, who has made an application under sub-section (1), as the case may be; and (c)pass such other direction as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13.] (4)If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section 13 to recover his secured debt. (4A)[ Where- (i)any person, in an application under sub-section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy,- (a)has expired or stood determined; or (b)is contrary to section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; or (c)is contrary to terms of mortgage; or (d)is created after the issuance of notice of default and demand by the Bank under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act; and (ii)the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (i), then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of this Act.] (5)Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6)If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (7)Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made thereunder. 11.6. What has been essentially challenged in WP No.9465 of 2015 is the sale notice which has been issued under the SARFAESI Act. The sale notices also being in furtherance of right exerciseD under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The only remedy that was available to the petitioner was to have recourse under Section - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 17 of the Act (Supra) writ petition is not a remedy which is available. 11.7. Though the said above writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and the matter is now being considered, if it was only a question of Alternate Efficacy Remedy taking into consideration the long lapse of time this Court could have exercised jurisdiction. 11.8. However, in view of Section 17 SARFAESI Act this Court lacks jurisdiction. The appropriate action that was required to be taken was one under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is not an issue of alternative efficacy remedy as sought to be contended by Sri.P.D.Surana., learned counsel for the petitioner. What is required to be considered is the essential lack of jurisdiction of this Court. Though this Court in many matters exercises its equitable jurisdiction to enable settlement of matters for - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 the purpose of deciding a lis in respect of actions taken under the SARFAESI Act, this Court would not have jurisdiction to decide any lis. 11.9. Insofar as the reliefs which have been sought for in WP No.50267 of 2019 as regards the proceedings to bring the property for sale in pursuance of a recovery certificate by the recovery officer who is an officer constituted under the recovery of RDB, Act 1983 and it is defined in terms of Section 2 (k) thereof. 11.10. The recovery proceedings have been initiated, and it is the recovery officer who has sought to bring the property for sale. The remedy in relation thereto is in terms of Section 30 RDB, Act. Section 30 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 30. [ Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (2)On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such enquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).] 11.11. An appeal in terms of Section 30 above an appeal would have to be filed before the Tribunal. That being the statutory remedy which is available the remedy of writ petition is not available to the petitions. 11.12. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that, this Court would not have jurisdiction to intercede and/or intervene with action taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and RDB Act, 1993. 12. Answer to point No.2: Whether the respondents can be restrained from selling the property as regards which a Recovery Certificate has been issued by the DRT and the Recovery Officer has taken action? - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 12.1. Much of this point is already been dealt with in answer to point No.1 above. 12.2. When the writ petitions are not maintainable the question of this Court restraining the recovery officer from selling the property would not arise. The recovery certificate has been issued, the recovery officer being appointed, the recovery officer has undertaken necessary action to sell the property in order to satisfy the recovery certificate. The said actions being taken by the recovery officer under the statute, this Court cannot intercede and prohibit such action on part of the recovery officer. 12.3. Insofar as the argument of the Sri.P.D.Surana., learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a charge which is created in respect of the subject properties, it would be for them to place the claim relating to said charge before the recovery officer in accordance with law as - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 may be permissible. Merely holding a charge would not entitle the petitioners to come in the way of a sale to be executed by the recovery officer. Whether the said charge would override the award and judgment of the DRT and what is the effect of said charge would be considered by the appropriate authority under the RDB, Act. 12.4. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that respondents cannot be restrained from selling the property as regards which a Recovery Certificate has been issued by the DRT and the Recovery Officer has taken action. 13. Answer to point No.3: What order? 13.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 and 2 above, I pass the following; - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26699 WP No. 9465 of 2015 C/W WP No. 50267 of 2019 ORDER i. There being no grounds being made out in the both the petitions, both the petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available including placing their claim of a charge before the recovery officer. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76