- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 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. 559 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS CHAITRA SRINIVAS W/O S CHETHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34 GANAPATHI NIWAS 20TH A MAIN, VENAKTESHWARA LANE BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ICICI BANK LIMITED/MANAGER HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT ICICI BANK LIMITED, NO.4/10 MYTHREE TOWER, BOMMANAHALLI HOSUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560068. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 12.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-E. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RECEIVE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,00,000/- AS PER REPRESENTATION AND TO CLOSE THE LOAN AS PER THE REPRESENTATION/ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AS PER ANNEXURE- C, DTD 31.03.2022. 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 sought for setting aside of the notice dated 12.07.2022 at Annexure-E. Annexure-E is the possession notice. 2. Various contentions have been urged including that the petitioner had expressed her desire to settle the dues by one time settlement under the 'One Time Settlement' (OTS) Scheme. 3. It is further submitted that default if any, was due to bonafide reasons. The petitioner has specifically asserted that the proposal for settlement has not been considered by the respondent-Bank. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that, earlier the proposal for one time settlement having been rejected, only thereafter, possession notice has been issued. 5. It is noticed that this court while entertaining the matter had granted an interim order of stay subject to certain conditions. No doubt, the condition imposed as regards payment as per the interim order has been complied, however, taking note that as against the notice at Annexure-E, which is measure under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, there is a provision of grievance redressal under the Act, petitioner is to be relegated to avail of the substantive remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 6. 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: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 "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, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of her 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27303 WP No. 559 of 2023 the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 11. 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