- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 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. 18121 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. S S R CONSTRUCTIONS REP. BY IT'S PARTNERS MR. RAGHUNANDAN A.R., MRS. AKHILA T.S., 2. MR. RAGHUNANDAN A.R., S/O. RAJAGURU A.P., AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. MRS. AKHILA T.S., D/O. SIDDE GOWDA T.S., AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE ADDRESSED AT NO.37, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN ASHOK GADAG, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS AGM AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.1ST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMA PRASADA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Arun Ashok Gadag, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.V.Shyama Prasada, counsel for respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the auction sale notice dated 26.05.2026 as ANNEXURE-J issued by Respondent for the sale of the schedule property. (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to provide the Petitioners with an opportunity to settle the outstanding dues and restructure the loan account. (c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026 3. Counsel for the petitioners presented several contentions. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioners that as against possession notice, petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the appropriate forum. 4. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the auction sale 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 auction sale notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. The petitioners have already availed statutory remedy, hence, filing the writ petition challenging the auction notice cannot be entertained. It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026 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 circumspection. The Apex Court in Phoenix Case's has held that filing of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026 also observed that whenever a notice is issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a litigant has statutory efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. 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.: 3