- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29257 WP No. 22274 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22274 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI NAVEEN KUMAR H N AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O H N NANJUNDEGOWDA, AMRUTHAPURA, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577228. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANTH M GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GIRISH B BALADARE.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK MALLANDUR BRANCH, MALLANDUR CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST -577121 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VINAY BHAT., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTIONS OR ORDER QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-C THAT IS THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 01-03-2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29257 WP No. 22274 of 2025 BANK I.E., THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, MALLANDUR BANCH, MALLANDUR, CHIKKMAGALURU DIST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the Possession Notice issued by the respondent in exercise of powers under Section 13[4] of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] read with the relevant Rules. The respondent has issued the impugned Notice purportedly because the petitioner, a borrower who has created charge over a plantation land, has committed default and is due in a sum of Rs.30,86,286/- as of 01.03.2025. This impugned Notice is after the Notice dated 06.12.2024 under Section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29257 WP No. 22274 of 2025 Sri Vinay Bhat, the learned counsel for the respondent, who is permitted to take notice, submits that the Sale Notice is also published and it is scheduled to be held on 31.07.2025. It would suffice for this Court to observe that the petitioner does not make out any special circumstance for this Court to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy is available. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of, but without prejudice to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-