- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29975 WP No. 359 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 359 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: JISHNU GANGADHAR, S/O. GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT D1, 2ND FLOOR, SAI SAHASRA APARTMENT, ROYAL RESIDENCY AVALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA, ABOVE NILGIRIS SUPER MARKET, BENGALURU -560062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HDFC BANK LTD., HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (WEST), MUMBAI -400013. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. HDFC BANK LTD., RETAIL PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, NO.24/3, HDFC HOUSE NO.51, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER HDGC BANK LTD, 1ST FLOOR, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29975 WP No. 359 of 2025 SITE NO. 455, KHATHA NO.9/455, DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR, SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE, BYATARAYANAPURA TALUK, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU -560077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARUN S., 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Shekarappa, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Varun S., counsel for the respondents appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash/ set aside the possession notice dated 13.11.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, produced at Annexure - E. (ii) Issue an order directing the bank to regularize the account No. 677977228 of the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29975 WP No. 359 of 2025 (iii) Issue any other relief that this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29975 WP No. 359 of 2025 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 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.: 28