- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32326 WP No. 23882 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 23882 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GOVINDARAJU M., S/O. SRI. MUNIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. SUJATHA RAJENDHIRAN, W/O. GOVINDARAJU M., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO.33, FLOUR MILL ROAD, NEAR CANARA BANK, BEGUR, BENGALURU-560 068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHARATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. IIFL FINANCE LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE: PLOT NO.98, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-IV, GURGAON-122016 (HARYANA) REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. M/S. IIFL FINANCE LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE NO.9, GROUND FLOOR, SOMAMERIT, VENKATASWAMY NAIDU STREET, TASKER ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32326 WP No. 23882 of 2024 2. RAGHU, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.52/1, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, MADHAV SANGHA CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 019. ALSO AT S.S.V TRADERS, SRI. KRISHNA HEIGHTS, NO.20, GANESHA LAYOUT, KADABAGERE, BENGALURU-562 130. 3. MRS. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PROPERTY NO.30, KHATHA NO.45/2, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, WARD NO.191, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 068. ALSO AT NO.52/1, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, MADHAV SANGHA CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 019. 4. THE PROPRIETOR, S.S.V. TRADERS, PROPERTY NO.30, KHATHA NO.45/2, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, WARD NO.191, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 068. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/ MANAGING DIRECTOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32326 WP No. 23882 of 2024 ALSO AT S.S.V. TRADERS, SRI. KRISHNA HEIGHTS, NO.20, GANESHA LAYOUT, KADABAGERE, BENGALURU-562 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. AROKIYA MARY D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATISH V., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Bharath., counsel on behalf of Sri.Muralidhar.H.M., for the petitioners and Smt.Arokiya Mary.D., counsel on behalf of Sri.Satish.V., for respondent No.1 appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Quash the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.6838/2023 as per Annexure-L by issue writ in the nature of Certiorari, or. (b) In the alternative pass such other order/s as this Court deems fit to pass on the facts and in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32326 WP No. 23882 of 2024 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the respondent IIFL Home Finance Limited had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.6838/2023 and the Court vide order dated:28.11.2023 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32326 WP No. 23882 of 2024 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 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.: 30