- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 31986 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. KUSUMA D/O M D DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. DR K PUTTU SWAMY S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 564-A VINAYA MARGA SIDDAHRTHANAGAR MYSORE 570 011 SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA SIDDHARTHNAGAR BRANCH NO. 464/A, VINAYA MARGA SIDDARTHANAGAR MYSORE 570011 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFICER CHIEF MANAGER SMT. MARALA VIDYA SAGAR. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R IN CP 19762/2024) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO. ROMYSU.SARFAESI.KH.246.2023 DTD. 23.08.2023 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the demand notice at Annexure-A dated 23.08.2023. Petitioner has also challenged possession notice dated 02.11.2023 at Annexure-B and the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore, in Crl. Misc. No. 21/2024 at Annexure-C. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has raised several contentions in the present petition including classification of petitioner's loan account as NPA and that the request of the petitioner for time to clear the loan dues - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 was not considered. Petitioner has also urged regarding procedural lapses. 3. It is to be noticed that this Court had granted interim relief by order dated 29.11.2024 and interim order came to be extended on subsequent dates. The direction of this Court to the petitioner was to file an affidavit. Accordingly, petitioner filed affidavit on 13.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank on the other hand would submit that all the orders that are challenged are amenable for challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner regarding validity of Section 13 notice, it is submitted that Section 13 notice finally merges with the orders passed which are impugned herein and can be challenged under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. He further submits that the contents of affidavit filed on 13.01.2025 cannot be accepted in light of the instructions and it is further pointed out that this Court on 21.01.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 had directed filing of affidavit which order till date has not been complied with. 5. It must be noticed that several contentions have been urged which are factually dense and in light of the law laid down in the case of the United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. Though contention is raised that the time prescribed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has not been followed, however, it must be noticed that any illegality in the notice would merge with the action of the respondent - Bank, which has been impugned herein. 6. 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 petitioner to seek for substantive remedy before the Debt - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 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. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 9. 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 three weeks from today. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27645 WP No. 31986 of 2024 10. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of the 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 petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 11. 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. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP