- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 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. 18002 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR PRAKASH SHETTY S/O KOLLUR SURENDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2-24 MAYURA GUEST HOUSE CAR STREET KOLLUR NEAR SHRI MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE KOLLUR-576 220 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B BHATT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER CANARA BANK SME KUNDAPUR MAIN II BRANCH KAMATH BUILDING MAIN ROAD KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576 201 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LATHA SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 9.11.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT UDUPI ORDER IN C.MIS.NO.189/2022, PASSED ON 9.11.2022, AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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 petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure-'A' dated 09.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.189/2022 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Various contentions have been raised, including that there have been procedural violations that the petitioner had not signed loan account and other contentions have been raised. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that substantial payments have been made during the pendency of the present proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that all contentions raised by the petitioner are factually dense and require to be raised in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 proceedings under Section 17 as against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. Taking note of the said stand of respondent Bank and that the petitioner has a substantive remedy as against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to avail of the substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. 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: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 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 III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 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 their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 6. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are 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 the writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent- Bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of three weeks from today. 9. 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 operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26661 WP No. 18002 of 2023 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. Insofar as the contention of petitioner that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.36.00 lakhs before the present proceedings and submits that he would make appropriate submission when called upon to make deposit, it is open for the petitioner to make a plea in the proceedings before the DRT and the same shall be taken note of by DRT. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR