- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29974 WP No. 5276 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. 5276 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. CHANDREGOWDA V.R., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. RUDRE GOWDA, JENGADDE POST, VALAGODU POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, BALEHONNUR BRANCH, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577121. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH S. 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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:29974 WP No. 5276 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Girish B.Baladare, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directions or order quashing the Annexure-B that is the Sale notice dated 2-02-2024 for E- auction of immovable property scheduled on 29-2-2024 issued by the Respondent Bank i.e., The Manager, Canara Bank Balehonnuru Branch, Chikkamagaluru District, in the interest of justice and equity. (b) Grant such others relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case 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 issued sale notice on under the Sarfaesi Act. The petitioner's grievance is about - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29974 WP No. 5276 of 2024 the issuance of the sale notice. The measures initiated by the Bank must be questioned before the Tribunal. 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29974 WP No. 5276 of 2024 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.: 27