- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18189 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SREEDEVI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2345, GROUND FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, E-BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560092. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT. SREEDEVI B.T., REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1961. 2. SMT. SREEDEVI B.T., W/O. SRI T.S.RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, ORCHID BLOCK, ESTEEM GARDENIA, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560092. 3. SRI. T.S.RAVISHANKAR, S/O. SRI. T.L.SANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, ORCHID BLOCK, ESTEEM GARDENIA, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560092. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 AND: 1. CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CANARA BANK ARM BRANCH-I, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 86, SPENCER TOWER, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER / AUTHORIZED OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (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 HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.06.2026, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: CAV ORDER Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.H.S.Prasahanth, for the petitioners and Sri. Vignesh Shetty, counsel for the respondent / Bank, appeared in person. 2. The petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned e-auction sale notice dated 25.05.2026, bearing Ref No.ARM-1 Branch/cb2366, issued by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-A in respect of the schedule properties. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give complete effect to their decision dated 11.12.2014 and formalize the release, discharge, and removal of the mortgage/lien over the schedule property. (c) Hold and declare that the respondents have no subsisting enforceable security interest over the schedule properties in view of the substitution of security dated 11.12.2014 and consequential acceptance of Sy. No.39/2 as collateral security. (d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Senior Counsel first drew the Court’s attention to Annexure-C, the bank's office note. It was emphasized that the bank had accepted the substitution of security and subsequently took possession of the title deeds for Sy. No. 39/2 of Binnamanagala Village. Based on this conduct, it was argued - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 that the bank is estopped and barred by its own conduct from asserting rights over an asset it had agreed to discharge. Furthermore, it was contended that the writ petition is maintainable in law and that, on this basis, an interim order should be granted. By way of reply, counsel for the respondent first urged that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, namely, to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It was next submitted that the petitioner has been in the habit of challenging every auction notice issued by the bank, and on each occasion, the courts have declined to entertain such pleas. Concerning Annexure-C, counsel contended that the office note relied upon by the petitioner is merely an incomplete internal note, not signed or approved by the competent authority. Advancing additional grounds, it was finally submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the measures taken by the bank. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 5. The Authorized Officer of the Bank issued an e-auction sale notice on 25.05.2026 for the sale of immovable property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules. The petitioners have raised a grievance with respect to the issuance of the auction sale notice. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not maintainable against actions taken by banks or financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Because the Act provides a specific, effective alternative remedy by filing a Securitization Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Others v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, and in Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022) 5 SCC 345, has categorically settled the law that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code. The Supreme Court has ruled that when an aggrieved party has an effective alternate remedy under the SARFAESI Act, a High Court should not entertain a writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 It is not in dispute that effective measures were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner possesses a statutory right to assail the impugned e-auction notice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. The jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, circumscribed, and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner lies in invoking the statutory forum provided under the Act. Hence, this court finds no justification to pass an interim order. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32678 WP No. 18189 of 2026 availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have a 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. 6. Resultantly, 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.: 2