- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 21466 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BHADRAKALI SEVA PRATISTHANA A REGISTERED INDIAN TRUST SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION NEAR LAKHSMI VENKATESWARA TEMPLE SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES THE INDIAN UNDER TRUST ACT. 2. MR. D.GANESH S/O B.DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, TRUSTEE/SECRETARY SRI BHADRAKALI SEVA PRATISTHANA R/AT NO.218-1, SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION, NEAR SRI BHADRAKALI TEMPLE, SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. 3. MR. TUKARAM S/O B.DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TRUSTEE, SRI BHADRAKALI SEVA PRASTIHANA R/AT SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION, Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 NEAR SRI BHADRAKALI TEMPLE, SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. 4. MR. B.DURGAPPA S/O BANGARAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS TRUSTEE SRI BHADRAKALI SEVA PRATISTHANA R/AT SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION, NEAR SRI BHADRAKALI TEMPLE, SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED. 5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O B.DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS TRUSTEE SRI BHADRAKALI SEVA PRATISTHANA R/AT SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION, NEAR SRI BHADRAKALI TEMPLE, SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUDDURAJA N., ADVOCATE) AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE AT AZAD ROAD-B.H.ROAD CROSS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ACTION TAKEN BY RESPONDENT BY WAY OF ISSUING AND AFFIXING THE POSSESSION NOTICE 05/07/2025 UNDER SEC13(4) OF SECTORIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. 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 1. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the Possession Notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that substantial amounts have been paid and the loan has been taken by a Trust. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 2. It is further submitted that they would make all efforts to clear the remaining balance in the loan account within a period of one month from today. 3. Learned counsel Sri Vignesh Shetty submits that the respondent is to avail of substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and cannot challenge the possession notice in the present proceedings. 4. In light of the contentions raised it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioners 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 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 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 5. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention 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. Taking note that the petitioner is a Trust and the submission that the loan arrears would be cleared within a period of one month. It would also be appropriate while relegating the petitioner to avail of substantive remedy that limited protection to be granted of four weeks. 8. 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. 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioners to avail of substantive - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28617 WP No. 21466 of 2025 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. 10. 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 DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32