- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14988 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: DR. VIJAY MISHRA AGED 51 YEARS, S/O UMASHANKAR MISHRA, RESIDING AT J601, PRICE TOWN, SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-560015. ALSO AT, B60, TAJ MAHAL H.E. CHS LIMITED, PAIS STREET, NEAR GODREJ PLANET, BYCULLA (W), MUMBAI, PIN-400011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DR.VIJAY MISHRA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VISHISHTA ARCADE NO.2243, 4TH FLOOR, 23RD CROSS, K.R.ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU- 560070, KARNATAKA. 2. BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, JK TOWERS, 719/A-53-2, 46TH CROSS, SANGAM CIRCLE, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO. ARCIL/BANK/13(2)/22-23/1061 DATED 17.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-C) AND SET ASIDE THE POSSESSION NOTICE, DATED 15.05.2024, ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV JUDGMENT The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “PRAYER In the circumstances, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased, in the interests of justice and equity, (a) To set aside the Demand Notice bearing No. Arcil/bang/ 13(2)/22-23/1061 dated 17.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-C) (b) To set aside the Possession Notice, dated 15.05.2024, issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-D) And (c) Pass such orders/ or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 2. The writ petition is filed against the Asset Reconstruction Company. When this matter came up for hearing, this Court has specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/party-in-person how the writ petition is maintainable against Asset Reconstruction Company in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of S.Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.1 and also Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others2. 3. The party-in-person had sought for time and filed his written submissions. In the written submissions, it is stated that the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application dated 24.03.2026 seeking directions for production of originals of disputed loan documents and forensic handwriting/signature examination. The petitioner's specific stand is that originals are being withheld and only photocopies were provided. It is stated that the immediate, minimum relief required at this stage is procedural and evidentiary, namely: (a) production and preservation of original documents; (b) a limited forensic 1 2025 INSC 117 2 (2022) 5 SCC 345 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 comparison; (c) a short status quo/stay against further coercive steps only until such evidence preservation occurs (or until the petitioner is effectively relegated to and protected before the competent statutory forum). It is stated that the petitioner does not invite the Court to decide disputed contractual accounts on merits in writ jurisdiction. The request is confined to preventing adjudication/enforcement based on allegedly unauthenticated and withheld primary evidence and to ensure that the statutory process is not founded on documents whose authenticity is seriously disputed. 4. It is also stated that in S.Shobha’s case referred supra, it is held that a private finance company is not ‘state’ and is not ordinarily amenable to a writ; and that RBI regulation by itself does not transform a private NBFC into a writ amenable authority. The petitioner also acknowledges that in Phoenix Arc Private Limited’s case referred supra, it is held that a writ petition under Article 226 against a private ARC challenging SARFAESI action under Section 13(4) is ordinarily not maintainable and the borrower should pursue the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. It is the case of petitioner that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 present case raises a distinct threshold question: whether, in view of alleged withholding of originals and pleading prima facie case of disputed/forged signatures, the petitioner may be granted limited evidence preservation directions that do not amount to a full adjudication of private contractual or SARFAESI merits. It is stated that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar and exceptions apply where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where there is failure of natural justice/fundamental procedural fairness. Submissions are also made on the merits of the matter. 5. It is also stated that without prejudice, the petitioner undertakes that if and when Section 13(4) ‘measure’ is taken, the petitioner shall approach the competent forum under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within a short time to be fixed by this Court and the interim protection sought may be restricted to that short window and/or till the DRT considers interim relief. In view of the pleadings, the remedy to go before the DRT is not an effective and alternative remedy. He tries to distinguish the judgment in S.Shobha’s case referred supra - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 stating that the present case is not a pure borrower-lender dispute in the realm of private contract. The grievance arises from the invocation of coercive statutory powers under SARFAESI on the basis of disputed sanction-acceptance documents. With regard to the Phoenix Arc Private Limited’s case referred supra, it is stated that the petitioner does not challenge a SARFAESI measure on merits, but raises a threshold issue as to whether such statutory action can be invoked at all when the execution of foundational document is specifically disputed and original is withheld. Based on these, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 6. Having heard the party-in-person, perused the material on record. While deciding the maintainability of this writ petition, it is appropriate to look at the judgment of the Apex Court in Phoenix Arc Private Limited’s case referred supra. It was observed as follows: “18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution – ARC – appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation (supra) and Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers. 21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mathew K.C. (supra) to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13.08.2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs.1 crore only (in all Rs.3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs.117 crores. The ad-interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex-parte ad- interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured 24 creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed.” 7. The Apex Court in S.Shobha’s case referred supra had observed as follows: “9. We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. (3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. (8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point. 10. Even while rejecting the writ petition on the ground of its maintainability, the High Court has protected the interest of the parties by observing in paras 6.1 as under:- “6.1 Following order shall govern, (i) It would be open for the respondent – original petitioner to have recourse to civil remedy before the appropriate Court in relation to the claim and grievance which she agitated by filing the writ petitions. (ii) The appellant-Company is not precluded from taking any recourse in law, if it is of the view that it has any claim against the respondent – party-in-person. (iii) It is also open to either side to invoke arbitration clause and engage in the process of arbitration to resolve the disputes. (iv) The amount of Rs.24,39,085/-, which has been realized from sale of the gold pursuant to the auction - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 conducted by the appellant-Company, shall remain deposited with the Registry of this Court. (v) The Registry shall invest the said amount in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and renewable. (vi) Such Fixed Deposit shall continue to renew for a maximum period of three years. (vii) The amount of interest which may accrue on such deposit shall be receivable by the respondent– petitioner. (viii) However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to raise any loan on the Fixed Deposit. (ix) The Fixed Deposit kept shall remain in custody of the Registry of this Court. (x) It would be open for either party to take recourse of civil remedy or before the arbitration within a period of three months from today.” 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments, it is clearly held that the writ petition against a private finance company is not maintainable before the High Court and it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not relegating the petitioner to the DRT on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but on the ground that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the contention with regard to efficacious alternative remedy has no legs to stand. The petitioner is seeking an interim protection till he approaches the DRT. When the writ petition itself is not maintainable, this Court cannot grant the interim relief which is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23834 WP No. 14988 of 2024 the settled law. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and the petitioner has to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. ii. The petitioner shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1