- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 26345 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SUDHEER NAYAK S/O LATE YASHVANTHA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3/23, HARI PRASAD, BELVAI MANAGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA 574 213 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH KINI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, J C ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560 002 BRANCH MANAGER 2. CANARA BANK BRANCH OFFICE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 MOODABIDRI P.O MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA 574 227 BRANCH MANAGER 3. ANIL CYPRIAN LOBO S/O ALEX LOBO BAILORDU HOUSE, HOSABETTU, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA 574 227 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VELANGANNI C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHENOY M, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 17.01.2022 ISSUED UNDER SEC 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE B PROPERTY (ANNEXURE-F). QUASH THE ORDER DTD 18.06.2022 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MIS. CASE NO. 187/2022 (ANNEXURE-H). QUASH THE ORDER DTD 05.02.2024 PASSED BY THE DRT-1 IN IA NO. 51/2023 IN SA NO. 19/2023 (ANNEXURE-L). QUASH THE PAPER PUBLICATION DTD 10.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE B PROPERTY (ANNEXURE-M). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: A. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 17.01.2022 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, in respect of B schedule property (Annexure-F); B. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.06.2022 and all proceedings in Crl. Misc. case No.187/2022 ( Annexure-H); C. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by DRT-1 in IA No. 51 of 2023 in SA No.19/2023 ( Annexure-L); D. Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the paper publication dated 10.09.2024 in respect of Schedule B property (Annexure-M). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 3. The petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor for the loan transaction with respondent No.1 Bank. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner and is in continuous possession of the property bearing No.105, admeasuring 950 sq.ft., situated at Moodbidri Town, described as Schedule-B property. Respondent No.3 is the Vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the property in 2013. Respondent No.3 has allegedly mortgaged the property in 2010. The petitioner is not a party to the petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. The respondent Bank affixed a notice outside the subject premises, calling upon the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the subject property. Further, the order under Section 14 of the Act came to be passed. The petitioner filed a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 Securitization Application assailing the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2024 on the ground that it has been filed belatedly and in view of inapplicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The respondent-Bank filed a statement of objections contending, among one of the several other grounds that the petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has not availed the equal efficacious remedy, which was available to him. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is the vendor of the petitioner. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 petitioner purchased the property in 2013. Respondent No.3 has allegedly mortgaged the property in 2010. The petitioner is not party to the petition filed under Section 14 of the Act. He submits that, the Debts Recovery Tribunal without appreciating the said aspects has passed the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Bank submits that the petitioner without exhausting an equal efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has an equal efficacious remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. The present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 10. It is undisputed that, a possession notice came to be issued on 17.01.2022. Further, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 14 of the Act on 18.06.2022 in Crl.Misc. No.187 of 2022. The petitioner herein was not a party to Crl.Misc. No.187 of 2022. The said order of the Magistrate was assailed before Debts Recovery Tribunal, in S.A. No.19 of 2023 by the petitioner along with an application for condonation of delay, in I.A. No.51 of 2023. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 dismissing the application in I.A. No.51 of 2023 and consequently, S.A. No.19 of 2023 on the grounds that it has been filed belatedly and in view of inapplicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 11. The petitioner has an equal efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 petitioner without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain vs Union Of India and Ors., in C.A. No. 6719 of 2012 disposed of on 12.11.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court, held in paragraph No.10, which reads as follows: “10. ...… The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is available to a party before the High Court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be by-passed. ...…” 12. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the authority aforementioned, the petitioner ought to have assailed the order passed in S.A. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 No.19 of 2023 before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. However, the petitioner filed the present writ petition without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable. 13. For the forgoing discussion, the I pass the following: ORDER 1. The writ petition is dismissed. 2. A liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in S.A. No.19 of 2023 within 30 days from today. 3. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for a period of 30 days from today. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10028 WP No. 26345 of 2024 5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK [Online] CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27