- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 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. 1326 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. B RAMASWAMY S/O LATE BELERANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 123 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREERAM T. NAYAK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA OFFICE AT NO.2/3, RAJA BUILDING, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER OF ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DIVYA PURANDAR., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2021 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 624/2021 Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS 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 the correctness of the orders passed in Crl.Misc.No.624/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru at Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner intends to settle the entire dues of the bank and he had certain properties which were subject matter of litigation in MFA No.8136/2019 and a specific ground was raised for modification of the interim order of non alienation and upon the submission that petitioner was required to clear the loan dues, permission was granted for mortgaging Item No.14 in the said proceedings which order was passed on 13.12.2024. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 3. It is further submitted that if certain time is granted, the petitioner would clear the entirety of dues by mortgaging the said property. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank would submit that the petitioner has substantive remedy and though offer has been made, the petition need not be kept pending and the matter may be relegated to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and petitioner be permitted to raise all contentions. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Taking note of the submission of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to grant some time to the petitioner. However, as against the order under Section 14, petitioner has remedy under Section 17, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy against the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 7. 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 Debts 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 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." 8. 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. 9. 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27302 WP No. 1326 of 2024 10. 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 eight weeks from today. 11. 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. 12. 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 NP