- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31021 WP No. 6178 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 6178 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. RESHMA TAJ, W/O. AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.23RD WARD, RAHAMATHNAGARA, VIJAYAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. 2. MR. AMEER JAN, S/O. BASHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.23RD WARD, RAHAMATHNAGARA, VIJAYAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. MUSRATH TABASSUM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A., ADVOCATE) AND: EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK, AT NO.3/5, JAVARAPPA COMPLEX, S.NO.43/3, MUNESHWARANAGAR, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, MALLATHALLI BENGALURU-560056. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SACHIN D.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAY S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31021 WP No. 6178 of 2023 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: ORAL ORDER Smt.Musrath Tabassum, counsel on behalf of Sri.S.A.Sudhindra, for the petitioners and Sri.Sachin D.M., counsel on behalf of Sri.Vijay S., for respondent appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, it is heard. 3. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue Writ of Certiorari / or writ of like nature for quashing the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent bank vide Annexure-C dated 25.05.2022. (b) Issuing a writ of mandamus like direction of like not to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property by the respondent bank, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31021 WP No. 6178 of 2023 (c) Such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The authorized officer of the Bank had issued Possession notice under Rule 8(1) on 25.05.2022. The Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.880/2022 and the Court vide order dated:02.11.2022 had allowed the petition. There is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT as against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Moreover, the petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices are not powerless. They have a liberty of filing objections and also approach DRT under Section 17 of the Act, appealing to the Tribunal if needed. The relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31021 WP No. 6178 of 2023 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 entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Furthermore, 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31021 WP No. 6178 of 2023 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, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. 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.: 28