- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.10365 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.448 OF 2022 (GM-RES) IN WP NO.10365/2024: BETWEEN: 1. MR KURIEN THOMAS SON OF MR. THOMAS KURIEN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AT NO. 526, RANKA PARK, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, SIB ARCADE, NO. 61, WHEELER ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. 2. MR. MOHAMED OMAR FAROOK SON OF ABDUL SHAKOOR, AGED MAJOR, AT NO. 315, 8TH CROSS ROAD, LAKSHMI ROAD, DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS, SHANTINAGAR, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027. Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 3. MRS. NASIMA FAROOK SUNDKA WIFE OF MOHAMED OMAR FAROOK, AGED MAJOR, AT NO. 315, 8TH CROSS ROAD, LAKSHMI ROAD, DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS, SHANTINAGAR, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.BLR/RO/SAR/204/2022-23 DATED 15/09/2023 UNDER THE S. 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ALL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY R1, ETC. IN WP NO.448/2022: BETWEEN: 1. KORAVAMPADY ESTATES & ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED REGD OFFICE: POST BAG NO. 03, AGALI POST, MANNARKAD TALUK PALAKKAD - 678581 KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY 2. SRI KURIAN THOMAS SON OF SRI THOMAS KURIAN RESIDENT OF NO. 526, RANKA PARK LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU - 560027 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. X M JOSEPH., ADVOCATE FOR P-1; SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR P-2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 AND: 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. REGD. OFFICE: SIB HOUSE, T B ROAD, MISSION QUARERS THRISSUR - 680001 KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE SIB ARCADE, NO 61 WHEELER ROAD, COX TOWN BENGALURU - 560005 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO GRANT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S LOAN ACCOUNT, THE COVID-19 RELIEF PACKAGE OF RESCHEDULING/ RESTRUCTURING BY CONVERSION OF THE WORKING CAPITAL FACILITY INTO TERM LOAN ACCOUNT AS PROVIDED IN THE RBI CIRCULARS NAMELY ANNEXURE-F, ANNEXURE-F1, ANNEXURE-F2 AND ANNEXURE-G RESPECTIVELY DATED 27.03.2020, 23.05.2020, 06.08.2020 AND 05.05.2021 AND TO GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL STATUS TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. Writ Petition No.448/2022 has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.2 i.e., the Authorised Officer to grant relief as regards 1st petitioner's loan account as is admissible under the COVID-19 relief package. The petitioners have sought the respondent-Bank to restructure the loan in terms of the RBI Circulars. The proceedings in Writ Petition No.448/2022 relate to the sanction of credit facilities to M/s. Koravampady Estates and Enterprises Private Limited as per Annexure-A. Writ Petition No.10365/2024 has been filed by Mr.Kurien Thomas seeking to set aside the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') at Annexure-H, to set aside the sale certificate dated 13.03.2024 at Annexure-R, further direction to respondent No.1-Bank to reverse all transactions and entries pursuant to the sale of the schedule property and a direction to the respondent-Bank - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 to classify the petitioner's loan as regular and receive all amounts legitimately due. 2. Writ Petition No.10365/2024 was filed on 03.04.2024 while Writ Petition No.448/2022 was filed on 06.01.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various contentions including non-adherence to the requirements of procedure under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Contentions have also been raised with respect to the discrepancy in the security sought to be enforced. It is the further case of the petitioners that properties which are income fetching have not been taken note of appropriately while treating the loan as NPA. It is also asserted that not all the loans repayments have a default and the respondent-Bank has taken the stand of treating all loans of the same entity as NPA while there may have been default as regards one of the loans. Various other contentions have been raised which are factually dense. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would assert that there has been lapse on the part of the petitioners insofar as rentals for certain period have been appropriated by the landlord despite commitment to remit the same to the Bank. Certain other contentions have also been raised. The auction purchaser has also raised contentions and submits that factually dense contentions including allegations of fraud are all matters that could be decided in an appropriate proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. It is not in dispute that insofar as the reliefs sought for in W.P.No.10365/2024, all the reliefs relate to action taken under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. If that were to be so under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, there is a substantive remedy. Writ Petition No.448/2022 is limited only to extension of benefits under the COVID-19 relief package scheme. 5. Any finding recorded relating to the contentions raised could only prejudice the right of the petitioners to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 have their contentions addressed as per the statutory remedy. Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110, it would be appropriate that the petitioners be relegated to avail of the substantive remedy provided for under the statute. 6. 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 greater rigour in matters involving recovery of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 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 the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 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." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. 9. It is to be noticed that the petitioners are being relegated to avail of the substantive statutory remedy. If the petitioners were to approach the DRT, needless to state that consideration of interim prayer as sought for by the petitioners is to be done expeditiously. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 10. In light of disposal of the writ petitions, it would meet the ends of justice by directing that the protection granted by this Court by way of interim order dated 05.04.2024 in Writ Petition No.10365/2024 would be in operation for a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 period of three weeks from the date of release of this order. 11. It is clarified that the observation made and protection granted is limited to the parties to the present proceedings. 12. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioners to avail of their substantive 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. 13. 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. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26094 WP No. 10365 of 2024 C/W WP No. 448 of 2022 14. All applications are disposed of as not calling for adjudication as the main writ petitions are disposed of. All contentions raised by way of interlocutory applications by the respondent-Bank are also kept open to be raised in the appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26