- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32325 WP No. 22414 of 2022 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. 22414 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. PHANIRAJU KANDUKURI, S/O. SRI. NAGARAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, FLAT NO.310 AND 311, RAINBOW RESIDENCY, NO.7/1A-150, 1ST CROSS, VIDHANA SOUDHA LAYOUT, LAKSHMIDEVINAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RACPC, MALLESHWARAM, NO.97, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 2. G.LOKESH, S/O. GAVIRANGAPPA, NO.68, GAVIRANGA COMPLEX, J.M. ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K.SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. I.DEVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32325 WP No. 22414 of 2022 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: ORAL ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either personally or through video conferencing. Sri.M.K.Shivaram., counsel for respondent No.1 has appeared in person. 2. The petition is filed to quash the impugned Sale Notice dated:10.06.2022 vide Annexure-F and Sale Certificate dated:30.07.2022 vide Annexure-K and also a mandamus to consider the representation. 3. Counsel for respondent No.1 on instructions submits that the sale certificate was issued back in 2022 and the possession has been delivered to the auction purchaser. He argued that the measures initiated by the Bank is questioned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32325 WP No. 22414 of 2022 before the DRT and the petitioner is invoked writ jurisdiction and the same is not maintainable. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The petitioner has grievance against the Bank. Any measures initiated by the Bank must be questioned before the Tribunal and not before the High Court 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32325 WP No. 22414 of 2022 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. 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.: 27