- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29523 WP No. 15187 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. 15187 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJU N., AGED 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, M/S. SRIKANTESHWARA POULTRY BREEDING FARM, RESIDING AT NO.63, UDAMALODU VILLAGE-561 210, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA M.K., ADVOCATE) AND: CANARA BANK ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT-II, BENGALURU, NO.86, SPENCER TOWERS, SECOND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, 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:29523 WP No. 15187 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.M.K.Venkataramana, counsel for the petitioner appeared in person. Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel undertakes to file power on behalf of respondent as the notice was already issued. Submission is noted. Office is directed accept the vakalath. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the Possession Notice vide Reference No.2373/EA/MAR/03/2025-26 dated 25-3-2026 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by the Respondent Bank invoking Section 13(4) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 vide Annexure-'A', issued by the Respondent Bank and thereby direct the Respondent Bank to re- deliver the physical possession of the Property - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29523 WP No. 15187 of 2026 No.1 of schedule Properties of Writ Petition to Petitioner, b. Pass any other appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice & 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's cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand/ possesion 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29523 WP No. 15187 of 2026 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 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, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29523 WP No. 15187 of 2026 and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if law permits, in accordance with the law. 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.: 8