- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 24944 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.ANBALAGAN S/O C MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.224/2 NEW NO.17(OLD NO.16) PID NO.84-2-16 4TH C CROSS MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT CHIKKABANASWADI BENGALURU-560043. 2. SMT TAMILARASI W/O ANBALAGAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.224/2 NEW NO.17(OLD NO.16) PID NO.84-2-16 4TH C CROSS MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT CHIKKABANASWADI BENGALURU-560043. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI GOWDAR,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK NO.59 SRI COMPLEX BHSC T BLOCK BANASHANKARI III STAGE AND M G ROAD BRANCH Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER NO.22 M G ROAD ASHOKNAGAR BENGALURU-560001. 2. JABBAR SINGH SODHA S/O GANPATH SINGHJI SODHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.217 4TH FLOOR D C PLAZA A S CHAR STREET BENGALURU-560053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER.,ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 11TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL MISC NO.50458/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE- V. DIRECT THE R1 NOT TO BREAK OPEN THE LOCK OF THE PETITIONERS HOUSE WITH POLICE ASSISTANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the ' SARFAESI Act' for short), in Crl.Misc.No.50458/2019, whereby the application has been allowed and the respondent-Bank has been permitted to take physical possession of the subject property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 2. The petitioners are assailing the said order on various grounds including that, the respondent No.2 has played fraud that there is a Civil Proceedings in RFA No.684/2021 pending between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2, and other contentions have been raised. 3. Taking note of the factual contentions and also pendency of Civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to avail substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 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 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." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 5. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention raised by the petitioner 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. 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. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27234 WP No. 24944 of 2022 the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 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 HR