- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29208 WP No. 16043 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 16043 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NAGENDRA K.S., S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TAXI DRIVER, R/AT NO.15/26/24, KEMPOHALLI VILLAGE, T.BEGUR PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. MRS. SIDDAGANGAMMA, W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOME MAKER, R/AT NO.15/26/24, KEMPOHALLI VILLAGE, T.BEGUR PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: NIVARA HOME FINANCE LIMITED NO.25/101/3, 3RD FLOOR, BNR COMPLEX, OPPOSITE RBI LAYOUT MAIN ROAD, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29208 WP No. 16043 of 2026 7TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560078. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS (i) MRS. C.V.RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (ii) MR. SUNIL ROHOKALE, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, (iii) MR. MONIK KOTICHA, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (iv) MS. DEBANSHI BABU, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (v) MR. M.V.JAYA RAMAN, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, (vi) MR. KRISHNA GOPAL RAMAN, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29208 WP No. 16043 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.Chandrashekar L., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.D.Narayana Swamy, counsel for the respondent appeared in person. Office is directed to accept the vakalath that would be filed by counsel Sri.D.Narayana Swamy. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.130/2026 by the CJM Rural Court Bengaluru, Bengaluru Rural, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act produced as Annexure-A. (ii) Issue such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29208 WP No. 16043 of 2026 Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The said contention can as well be agitated before the appropriate forum. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. Suffice it to note that the first respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.130/2026 and the Court vide order dated:05.02.2026 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29208 WP No. 16043 of 2026 procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the 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 great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29208 WP No. 16043 of 2026 Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22