- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32101 WP No. 2398 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. 2398 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. M.CHANDRU, S/O. SRI. T.MUNEGOWDA, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, 3RD CROSS, SURYODAYA NAGAR, ADJACENT TO WINFIELD GARDEN, DR. SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR, SAMPIGEHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560077. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANDHYA U.PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NEW HORIZON COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BRANCH, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU-560087. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32101 WP No. 2398 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Sri.Sandhya U.Prabhu, counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conferencing. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the possession notice issued by the respondent bank dated 22/10/2021 issued by the respondent bank which is produced at Annexure-C. b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the sale notice issued by respondent bank dated 14/01/2022 produced at Annexure-E. c) Such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. The authorized officer of the Bank issued Possession notice on 22.10.2021. The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the possession and sale notice. The Apex Court has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32101 WP No. 2398 of 2022 settled the law in a catena of decisions that a possession and sale 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. 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:32101 WP No. 2398 of 2022 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.: 40