- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 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.18983 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.C. RAJASHEKARA S/O LATE K. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8, MAYAMMA 1ST CROSS, C.P. LAYOUT 1ST FLOOR, DEVI NAGAR RMV EXTENSION, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI BANGALORE-560 094. 2. SRI. SURYA PRAKASH G. S/O GANESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT A-1, PRIME LEELA APARTMENT P AND T LAYOUT, KURUBARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 086. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. DHARANI J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE AT NO.65 ST. MARK'S ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA NELAMANGALA BRANCH Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 of 2025 OFFICE AT NO.2769/2272 CHENNAPPA LAYOUT BENGALURU-562 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. SRI. RAMANJANEYULU JAINI MAJOR IN AGE S/O JAINI CHANDRASHEKAR R/O NO.2, 1ST FLOOR 6TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS B, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SMT. SADANA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R.3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 02.12.2024 INTIMATED VIDE LETTER DATED 3RD FEBRUARY, 2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-J BEARING NUMBER SBI/SARB/05173/ RST/2024- 25/655 HELD BY RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AS BEING UNLAWFUL, 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 sought for a declaration that the action proceedings at Annexure - J are unlawful. Further leave is sought in the nature of a direction to the respondent - bank to receive outstanding sums from the petitioners. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 of 2025 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/bank had filed a memo and submits that the auction sale notice and the proceedings which have been challenged are being taken to its logical end and there was a successful bidder, sale has been confirmed and sale certificate has been issued, registered and copy of the sale certificate is produced. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the writ petition was filed on 16.06.2025, while the sale notice was dated 02.12.2024 and as on such date the right of redemption has been extinguished in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CELIR LLP v. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PRIVATE LIMTED AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1209. 4. The learned counsel for respondent - bank submits that any grievance regarding the sale notice is a matter that could be raised under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in the light of the law laid down in the case - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 of 2025 of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioners 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 of 2025 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 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." 7. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26836 WP No. 18983 of 2025 8. 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. 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.: 5