- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29968 WP No. 17596 of 2026 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. 17596 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: VIJAYA KUMAR R., S/O. RANGANATH V., AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.140, SAI PRASHANTH LAYOUT, NEAR SPOORTHY COLLEGE, CHANDAPURA ANEKAL ROAD, BENGALURU-560099. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENUGOPALA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CANARA BANK, REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ CHIEF MANAGER, HSR LAYOUT BRANCH, NO.1083, GROUND FLOOR, SECTOR 3, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102. 2. PRABHAKAR R., S/O. RANGANATH V., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, YASHORANGA NILAYAM, NO.2, 4TH 'A' CROSS, 31ST MAIN, TANK SHORE ROAD, BTM STAGE-II, BENGALURU-560076. 3. BRIHADEESHWARAN, S/O. PRABHAKAR R., Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29968 WP No. 17596 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, YASHORANGA NILAYAM, NO.2, 4TH 'A' CROSS, 31ST MAIN, TANK SHORE ROAD, BTM STAGE-II, BENGALURU-560076. 4. MR. ANIL KUMAR, SON OF KRISHNA DEO CHAUDHARY 6H/24, BHOOTNATH ROAD, PO. BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, SAMPATCHAK, B.H.COLONY, PATNA, BIHAR - 800026. 5. MR. CHAUDHARY AMARESH KUMAR, SON OF KHAGENDRA CHAUDHARY, 61, PUSHP COTTAGE, MEGHPAR (BORICHI), ANJAR, KACH, GUJARAT - 370110. 6. MR. SUDHEER KUMAR JHA, SON OF BABU NARAVAN JHA, GRAMBENIPUR, BENIPUR, DARBHANGA, BIHAR-847103. 7. MR. KUMAR VENKATESH, MR. ARUN KUMAR, JHANDAPUR HOUSE, CHAKKAR CHOWK, RAS ULPUR ZILANI, MUZAFFARPUR, MUSAHRI, BIHAR-842001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) 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, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29968 WP No. 17596 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.Venugopala M.S., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for respondent No.1 appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ certiorari quashing/setting aside the auction sale of the schedule property infavour of the Respondent No.4 to 7 under a sale certificate issued by 2nd Respondent vide Annexure-G; date 5/1/2026. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 bank to accept/permit the petitioner to make the payment of the dues that is covered under the auction sale vide Annexure-G, by considering the representation dated 05.11.2025 Vide Annexure-J and issue discharge letter in so far as schedule property is concerned; (iii) Issue such other writ or directions as this Hon'ble court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29968 WP No. 17596 of 2026 allowing the writ petition 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 authorized officer of the Bank has issued sale certificate by exercising power conferred under SARFAESI Act 2002, and Section 13 read with (Rule 8 and 9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The measures initiated by the Bank must be questioned before the Tribunal and not before the High Court 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29968 WP No. 17596 of 2026 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.: 9