- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30708 WP No. 18437 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18437 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KANTHARAJU K.O., S/O. OMKARAPPA K.P., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. SMT. C.K.NAGAMMA, W/O. OMKARAPPA K.P., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O KORNAHALLI VILLAGE, K.CHATTANAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YASHAVANTHSWAMY A.M., ADVOCATE) AND: EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS EQUITAS), FINANCE LIMITED, OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, PHASE-2, SPENCER PLAZA, NO. 769, MOUNT ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600 002. HAVING BRANCH OFFICE EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., (CHIKKAMANGALURU BRANCH), NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, BIRUR KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 228. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30708 WP No. 18437 of 2026 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MR SANGAM. …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 PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Yashavanthswamy.A.M., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, it is heard. 3. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari by way of quashing the order dated 21.05.2026 passed in Crl.Misc. No.124/2026 passed by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chikkamagaluru vide Annexure-A. (b) Pass any other order or orders as this Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30708 WP No. 18437 of 2026 4. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. Suffice it to note that the respondent Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.124/2026 and the Court vide order dated:21.05.2026 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. 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:30708 WP No. 18437 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. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. 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 MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16