- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29524 WP No. 15841 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15841 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. NANJAPPA K.V., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. VEERABHADRAIAH H.N., R/AT KOLLA KOLAL HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK-572140, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER, UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK, HEAD OFFICE: GRAPE GARDEN, NO.27, 3RD 'A' CROSS, 18TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 …RESPONDENT 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: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29524 WP No. 15841 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.Mohana Chandra P., counsel for the petitioner appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the impugned notice dated 13-4-2026 issued by the respondent bank to the petitioner vide ANNEXURE -D, and b) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. The relief sought by the petitioner's cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand/ possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29524 WP No. 15841 of 2026 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29524 WP No. 15841 of 2026 circumspection. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 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.: 10