- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32104 WP No. 10922 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 10922 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKAR K.R., S/O. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S GOWDA BAR AND RESTAURANT SHIVAPURA, B.M.ROAD, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT-571432. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L.SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA, (EARLIER CORPORATION BANK), MADDUR BRANCH, KEERTHANA COMPLEX, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT-571432 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32104 WP No. 10922 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. The petition is filed in 2022 and it is pending for almost four years. Hence, this Court proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Pass an order, direction or writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated:27.05.2022 vide Annexure-D, issued by the respondent. (b) Pass/grant any other order/ relief in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The authorized officer of the Bank had issued notice to the borrower Chandrashekar.K.R i.e., the petitioner herein and also to the tenants or lessee and to whom so ever it concerned on 27.05.2022 for vacating the property. The notice was issued four years back and it was also brought to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32104 WP No. 10922 of 2022 notice of the petitioner that if the property is not handed over within 7 days, action will be taken for vacating the property under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The measures initiated by the Bank must be questioned before the Tribunal and not before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The relief sought by the petitioner's cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32104 WP No. 10922 of 2022 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 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 MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50