- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 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.3047 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S QUEPREON BIOLOGICALS PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR SHIVARAJ D 2. MR SHIVARAJ D S/O DEVARAJ GOWDA AGED 43 YEARS 3. MRS SHASHIKALA J AGED 64 YEARS ALL ARE AT M/S QUEPREON BIOLOGICALS PVT LTD., NO.53, 33RD CROSS, 16TH MAIN, OPP TO BES COLLEGE, SHARAVATHI PLAZA JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011 IT IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1958 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HEGDE V S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEUTSCHE BANK AG RAHEJA TOWERS, 26-27, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DEUTSCHE BANK AG RAHEJA TOWERS, 26-27, M G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHABALESHWAR G.C. ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE UNDER APPENDIX IV (RULE 8(1) R/W SECTION 13(4) DTD 17.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 UNDER SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION 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 petitioners have called in question the correctness of the notice at Annexure-'A' dated 17.01.2024 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners have raised various contentions, including the procedural lapses in issuing of notice as well as the statutory violations. 2. It is noticed that this Court had granted an interim order on 02.02.2024 and certain conditions were imposed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the condition of deposit of Rs.50.00 lakhs has been complied. 4. It is further submitted that efforts are on for the settlement. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as against the impugned proceedings, the petitioners may be relegated to avail of substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before DRT. 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:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 "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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 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:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 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 the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 10. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27970 WP No. 3047 of 2024 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. 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 VGR