- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 22365 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. SMILES FOOD AND BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD. AND INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, REGD. OFFICE AT NO. 64, 6th CROSS, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570 019, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. MANJESH G, S/O SRI. V. GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SARASWAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ZONE -IX - BENGALURU, HEAD OFFICE AT SOGO PROPERTIES, Ist FLOOR, SITE NO. 47, 100 FT. ROAD, 4th BLOCK, WARD NO. 68, KORAMANGALA EXTENSION, BENGLAURU - 560 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/ ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MRS. SAJITHA RANJITH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.252/2025 BY THE IST ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, AND CJM, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE - D AND ETC., 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 The Petitioner has called in question correctness of the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.252/2025 passed by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, at Annexure-D. Petitioner submits that there have been procedural violations in so far as the order under Section 14 as it does not quantify the amount due. It is further submitted that the Petitioner intends to clear the loan dues if sufficient time is granted. Various other contentions are also raised assailing the order of the Magistrate contending that the order is passed without application of mind. 2. Learned counsel Sri. H.R. Sunil Kumar appearing for the Respondent - Bank submits that the order under Section 14 is one that could be challenged - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT and that this Court ought not to entertain the present writ petition. 3. It is to be noticed that each of the contentions raised by the Petitioner are matters that could be raised by resorting to substantive remedy under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT as against the order passed under Section 14 which has been assailed in the present matter. 4. Taking note that police protection if necessary is also permitted to be availed on. It may be necessary while relegating the Petitioner to avail the substantive remedy to give limited protection as this Court is not entering into the merits of the contentions raised. 5. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 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 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:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 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. 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 10. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28487 WP No. 22365 of 2025 instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE BSV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK