- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26835 WP No. 21385 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.21385 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAMATHA W/O. MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT #10-4-137/7 R.S. DODDI, 13TH WARD HANUR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 490. 2. SRI. MADAPPA S/O. LATE MASANAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT #10-4-137/7 R.S. DODDI, 13TH WARD HANUR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 490. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA COLLEGE ROAD T. NARSIPURA BRANCH T. NARASIPURA-571 124 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BRIJESH CHANDER GURU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26835 WP No. 21385 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE BEARING NO.SARFAESI-A/C NO.HBL-40409699267, DATED 07.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE MEMO VIDE NO. CHANA/DSB/BB/189/2025, DATED 12.07.2025 ISSUED BY OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-B., 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 The petitioners have sought for setting aside the possession notice at Annexure - A as well as memo dated 12.07.2025 issued by the office of Superintendent of Police, Charmarajanagar district at Annexure - B. 2. The petitioners submit that there were certain lapses in the proceedings of the respondent and accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26835 WP No. 21385 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantive remedy as against such proceedings is by way of proceedings available under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, and he further submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. In the 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26835 WP No. 21385 of 2025 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 Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26835 WP No. 21385 of 2025 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:26835 WP No. 21385 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. 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 his 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26835 WP No. 21385 of 2025 approach are to look at 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 HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17