- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54499-DB WA No. 1686 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1686 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA RICE MILL REPT BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR T SREENIVASA SETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT 10TH WARD, SANKLAPUR, BELLARY ROAD, HOSAPETE DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGARA-583 201 2. MR T SREENIVAS SETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT PLOT No. 46 DOOR No. 1506 SRI NIVASA, J P NAGAR, BELLARY ROAD, HOSAPETE DIST VIJAYANAGAR 583201 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M A RAJENDRA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54499-DB WA No. 1686 of 2025 SME BRANCH HOSAPETE DIST, VIJAYANAGAR 583201 2. SRI MALAPATI VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS (AUCTION PURCHASER) S/O SRI NARAYANA REDDY NO 72, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO 992 ANNAPURNA BADAVANE, HOSPETE VIJAYANAGAR KARNATAKA 583201 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 R/W RULE 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1997 PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 14/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE (IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT) DISPOSING OF WP NO.14481/2025. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application - IA.No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54499-DB WA No. 1686 of 2025 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6601/2025 [GM-DRT] c/w Writ Petition No.14481/2025 [GM-RES]. The appellant had filed Writ Petition No.14481/2025 impugning an order 30.04.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal -1[DRT], Bengaluru, in SA.No.140/2025. The appellant had filed Writ Petition No.6601/2025 impugning an order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the DRT in Case No.652/2024. 3. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petitions for the reason that the appellant had a statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT] under Section 18 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]. 4. The learned counsel appearing to the appellant contended that an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAEI Act would lie only against an order passed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. He submitted that in the present case, the impugned order was passed to not entertain the appellants' applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on the ground of delay. He submitted that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54499-DB WA No. 1686 of 2025 if the appellants' application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would not be entertained on account of delay, any appeal preferred against the said order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act would also suffer the same fate. He also submitted that there is a requirement for making a pre-deposit which renders the appellate remedies as inefficacious. 5. We find no merit in the aforesaid contentions. The appellant’s application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has been rejected on the ground of delay. It is the appellant's case that the application was filed within time, if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was extended to the appellant. It appears that the said contention was rejected as well. The fact that the appellant’s application under Section 17 has been rejected on the ground of delay does not mean that an appeal against the said order does not lie. The question is not whether the appellant would succeed in its remedies. The question is whether such remedies are available to the appellant. 6. The contention that if a person cannot avail of a statutory remedy, the writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54499-DB WA No. 1686 of 2025 of India ought to be entertained is equally unmerited. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. We clarify that this order would not preclude the appellant from availing of its alternative remedies in accordance with law. 8. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9