- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 15260 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR SANTHOSH SHETTY B R S/O MR RAMESH SHETTY B AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO B-5 1ST FLOOR, SAR LOHITHAKSH COMPLEX, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU -560037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR DARE HOUSE NO 02, BSC BOSE ROAD CHENNAI - 600001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-H THE NOTICE DTD 20.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 (4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT AND ETC., 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 The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act at Annexure 'H' which is the possession notice. The petitioner has also challenged the notice under Section 13(2) at Annexure 'E'. It is noticed that this Court has passed an interim order on 28.02.1992. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions imposed in the interim order has been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that proceedings have been initiated under Section 14 before the Magistrate in C.Misc. N.792/2022. 3. Taking note that as against the impugned orders in the present petition as well as the proceedings in so far as the impugned orders, there is a statutory remedy under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the substantive remedy under the SARFACIE Act. In so far as C.Misc. No.792/2022, counsel for the petitioner submits that they will take appropriate steps as regards such of the proceedings. 4. 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 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 their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 5. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 6. 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. 7. 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 two weeks from today. 8. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26334 WP No. 15260 of 2022 operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 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 YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30