- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 20734 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 20748 OF 2025 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 20750 OF 2025 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 20734/2025 BETWEEN: SYED SADIQ AHMED S/O SYED ISAIQH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.5, "MADINAH MANZIL", SECOND FLOOR, FLAT NO. 105, 4TH CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMAD AYUB ALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MALLESWARAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.102, 7TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M G GURUPRASAD. 2. SYED AIJAZ AHMED, S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, "MADINAH MANZIL", 4TH CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN CP NO.8769/2025) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY VIIITH ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE C. MISC. NO. 1045/2025 DATED 26/03/2025 AND IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT 2002 DATED 08/07/2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES, B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REHEAR THE ENTIRE MATTER IN VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE C. MISC NO. 1045/2025 DATED 26/03/2025 ON ITS FILE AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY. IN WP NO. 20748/2025 BETWEEN: SYED ALEEMA, S/O SYED KALEEM AGHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.5, "MADINAH MANZIL", FIRST FLOOR, FLAT NO.103, 4TH CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMAD AYUB ALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MALLESWARAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.102, 7TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003 REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M G GURUPRASAD. 2. SYED AIJAZ AHMED, S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, MADINAH MANZIL, 4TH CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. ...RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. K.V. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI PUTHIGE R. RAMESH (DESIGNATED AS SR. COUNSEL) ASSIST THE COURT AS AMICUS CURIAE] - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE C. MISC. NO. 1045/2025 DATED 26/03/2025 AND IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT 2002 DATED 08/07/2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REHEAR THE ENTIRE MATTER IN VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE C.MISC. NO.1045/2025 DATED 26/03/2025 ON ITS FILE AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY. IN WP NO. 20750/2025 BETWEEN: IMRAN PASHA, S/O. FAYAZ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5, MADINAH MANZIL, 4TH CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMAD AYUB ALI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MALLESWARAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.102, 7TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003, REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M.G. GURUPRASAD. 2. SYED AIJAZ AHMED S/O. LATE HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A NO. 5, MADINAH MANZIL, 4TH CROSS, AJJAPPA BLOCK, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. LOKESH, ADV., FOR C/R1 IN CP NO.8769/2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE C.MISC. NO. 1045/2025 DATED 26/03/2025 AND IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT 2002 DATED 08/07/2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REHEAR THE ENTIRE MATTER IN VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE C. MISC. NO. 1045/2025 DATED 26/03/2025 ON ITS FILE AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER All these three petitions have clubbed and taken up together and disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by VIII Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.Misc.No.1045/2025 and have challenged the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for brevity). 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are bonafide tenants and that they have been dispossessed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 summarily by the respondent-Bank without separate notice to them. It is submitted that in terms of Section 17(4)(a), tenants have right before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short) in substantive proceedings to make out their claim for tenancy. On various other grounds as well including procedural lapses, the validity of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 has been called in question. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that if they had notice regarding proceedings, they would have taken appropriate proceedings in terms of 17(4)(a) and are now literally on streets. 5. Learned counsel for respondent - Bank submits that the proceedings in C.Misc.No.1045/2025 was pending consideration for substantial time and the petitioners were aware of said proceedings and could have taken action for approaching DRT and secure their possession at first available opportunity and instead have approached this Court belatedly. It is further submitted that this Court cannot direct the bank to open the premises and permit the tenants to enter and take possession without the order of the Magistrate being set-aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 6. Heard both sides. 7. The substantive remedy for the petitioners is in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. 8. All contentions of the petitioners are kept open for consideration. However, in light of the request made by the petitioners that the premises having been sealed and that all their belongings are inside the premises, it would be appropriate to pass certain directions as regards such aspect. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank upon suggestion of the Court submits that they would permit the petitioners to take out their belongings and would keep the premises open in presence of the bank officials as well as the petitioners, for few hours. 10. Taking note of such stand, petitioners to give written request to the respondent - Bank, who may consider the same in the light of the observations made above. 11. In light of the contentions raised, it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 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. 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 view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 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." 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the petitions are 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. 14. In light of disposal of writ petitions, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent - Bank not to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27941 WP No. 20734 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20748 of 2025 WP No. 20750 of 2025 take any precipitative steps for a period of four weeks from today. 15. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioners 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 petitioners may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 16. 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. 17. This Court appreciate the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae, the same is placed on record. Accordingly, petitions are disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE PSG:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16