- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 21384 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S GSK PROJECTS AND ENGINEERING (P) LTD NO.530, 15TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, BENGALURU 560010. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. MR.GIRISH.RAMESWARAPPA. S/O. RAMESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A.NO.4.2ND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, FURTHER EXTENSION, BENGALURU -560086. SHED NO.2/1, SY NO.27/2, RAMAIAH INDUSTRIAL AREA, HEROHALLI CROSS, MAHADESWAR NAGAR, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA V. ADVOCATE AND MS. SYEDA SHEHNAZ, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 AND: 1. CANARA BANK ASSETS RECOVERY MANAGER-II 2ND FLOOR, SPENCER TOWERS, NO.86, MG ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. V. LOKESH, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE DATED 02.07 2025, U/SEC. 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002, R/W RULE 8(6) AND (9) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 AT ANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has challenged the sale notice at Annexure-A dated 02.07.2025. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has made substantive payment of Rs.1,81,00,000/- and petitioner though is ready to settle - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 the loan account on reasonable terms, respondent - Bank is making efforts to bring the property to sale. Various other contentions have been raised. 3. It is to be noticed that insofar as sale notice is concerned, the petitioner has substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Petitioner submits that they have learnt that auction has taken place and sale has been confirmed as regards the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A. 4. In light of the contentions raised by the petitioner, 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 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 financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 6. 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. 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. 8. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent- bank not to issue sale certificate for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. The respondent - Bank may also furnish entirety of the loan account to the petitioner upon request. 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of the substantive - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28668 WP No. 21384 of 2025 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. 10. 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. 11. Needless to state the petitioner is to array the auction purchaser in the event any substantive proceedings are taken before the DRT. 12. In light of the above, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP