- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 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. 35992 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHOBHA SHEKAR REDDY W/O H S SHEKAR REDDY AGED 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.168/8 BEGUR MAIN ROAD SRINIVASA REDDY LAYOUT HONGASANDRA, BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 068 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V B RAVISHANKER., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD., REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE: UNIT NO.505, 5TH FLOOR CORPORARATE AVENUE, WING 2/E, ANDHERI-GHATKOPAR LINK ROAD CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 093 REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PATIL J M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE IN CRL. MISC. NO. 2782/2023 AND ALSO THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 16.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER LIST THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.2782/2023. 2. Petitioner submits that after filing of the petition, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been paid. Various contentions have been raised regarding the procedural lapses. Petitioner further submits that he is ready to clear the dues, if time is granted. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is to be relegated to avail of the substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 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 petitioner 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 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 Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 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." 5. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26225 WP No. 35992 of 2024 9. 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 VP