- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024 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. 15989 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. SUGANDHA BABU, S/O, LATE SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.198, ARALIMARADA PALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMKURU-572106. KARNATAKA (LESSEE/LICENSEE IN PORTION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA DABASPETE BRANCH (040731) MARUTHI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, MADHUGIRI ROAD, DABASPET-562111. REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER REGISTER BANKING COMPANY UNDER BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 2. M/S. SHANKAR MALL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, T.K.RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE G.B.KRISHNAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2-1-10-47B, 59331 PID NO. SY. NO. 4 AND 5 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024 ASSESSMENT NO.3809/16, SIRA ROAD, TUMKURU-572105. REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. LAKSHMI K.VARADARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. M.S.HAREESH, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED 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: ORAL ORDER Sri.Srinivas Shetty, counsel on behalf of Sri.M.Mohan for the petitioner, Smt.Lakshmi K.Varadaraj, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.S.Hareesh, counsel for proposed respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) To quash the Respondent Bank's impugned Possession Notice (ANNEXURE:A) dated 30/08/2021 issued u/s.13 (4) of SARFAESI Act in respect of a portion of the schedule property which is covered under the Petitioner's Leave and License Agreement in the interest of justice and equity; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024 (ii) To pass any such orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances stated above 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 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:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024 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.: 20