- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29206 WP No. 25356 of 2024 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. 25356 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: DHANANJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA N.S., R/AT BIRUNANI VILLAGE AND POST, HUDIKERI HOBLI, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHWETHA NAYAK N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ABHISHEK SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: CANARA BANK BIRUNANI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI. BHASKAR. V, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAY BHAT, 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: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29206 WP No. 25356 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Smt.Shwetha Nayak N., counsel on behalf of Sri.Dhananjay Kumar and Sri.Abhishek Shetty for the petitioner and Sri.Vinay Bhat, counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari, to set aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.31/2024 dated 27.06.2024 by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu at Madikeri granting permission to the respondent - Bank to take possession of the secured assets mortgaged to them vide Annexure-A. (ii) Issue any other order or direction under the facts and circumstances of the present case, to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court would deem fit to be granted, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29206 WP No. 25356 of 2024 4. Suffice it to note that the first respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.31/2024 and the Court vide order dated:27.06.2024 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29206 WP No. 25356 of 2024 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. 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.: 17