- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.17237 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAYARAMA H., S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. SMT. RADHA, W/O. SRI JAYARAMA H., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.81, HONAGANAHATTI, KADUBUGERE POST, BENGALURU-562 130. ALSO AT SITE NOS.1 AND 2, GANGONDANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 162. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAJI N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANALAKSHMI FINANCE SERVICES LTD.,), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO.10/1, 11/2 AND 12/2B OFF DOMLUR, KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026 NEXT TO EGL BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560 071. 2. SMT. VIMALA RAMACHANDRAREDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, E402, UKN ESPERANZA, THUBARAHALLI EXTENDED ROAD, THUBARAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Balaji N., for the petitioners appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, it is heard. 3. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026 (a) Quash the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural in Crl. Misc., 81/2026, Annexure-G, E- auction notice, Sale notice issued by 1st respondent Bank and also quash the sale certificate dated 18.04.2026 issued by the 1st respondent in favour of 2nd respondent / auction purchaser Annexure-A. (b) Seek to consider the case of the petitioners to OTS scheme, return back the physical possession and original documents to the petitioners from the 1st respondent bank. (c) Grant any such other order or relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners by allowing this writ petition, in the ends of justice and equity. 4. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026 6. Suffice it to note that the authorized officer of the Bank, had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.81/2026 and the Court vide order dated:04.02.2026 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 Bank had issued E-auction sale notice. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the E- auction sale notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices are not powerless. They have a liberty of filing objections and also approach DRT under Section 17 of the Act, appealing to the Tribunal if needed. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand/ possession notices and E-auction 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026 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 hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026 with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. 7. 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.: 7