- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20114 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GREENSOL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.11, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, S.V.LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY, S/O. SRI. GOPAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SMT. NEETHA P.SHETTY, W/O. PRAKASH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O. SRI. M.SACHIDANANDA SHETTY, NO.6, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BOOPASANDRA, SANJAYNAGAR, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: CANARA BANK, ARB BRANCH I, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 2ND FLOOR, NO. 86, SPENCERS TOWER, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRSENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 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 Sri.Sagar. B.B., counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Vignesh Shetty, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for orders, it is heard. 3. This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned sale notice dated 16.06.2026 published by the respondent bank vide Annexure J in the interest of justice and equity so far as the petitioner is concerned. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent bank to furnish correct and true accounts to the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity. (iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 4. Sri.Sagar. B.B., counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments, vehemently contended that the description of the property of Item No.1 in the impugned sale notice is incorrect. It is not a vacant land but a residential house built on site No.100/B in property No.11B, Old Assessment No.26 & 27, situated at Bhoopasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, presently having Corporation No.11, 1st Cross, Bhoopasandra, Bangalore. It is contended that the availability of a statutory remedy is not a bar to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, he submits that an interim order may be passed and a writ petition may be allowed. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR VS. INTERNATIONAL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS., REPORTED IN 2014 SUPREME (SC) 263. 5. Sri. Vignesh Shetty, counsel, submits that any person aggrieved by the measures initiated by the bank must avail the statutory remedy of approaching the DRT. Counsel, therefore, submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the measures taken by the bank. 7. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.9334/2024, and the Court vide order dated 24.03.2025 had allowed the petition. As against the order, there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The authorized officer of the Bank had issued a sale notice. The petitioners have raised a grievance with respect to the issuance of the sale notice dated 16.06.2026. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices is not powerless. They have the liberty of filing objections and also approach DRT under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 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 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. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not maintainable against actions taken by banks or financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Because the Act provides a specific, effective alternative remedy by filing a Securitization Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Others v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, and in Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022), has categorically settled the law that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code. The Supreme Court has ruled that when an aggrieved party has an effective alternate remedy under the SARFAESI Act, a High Court should not entertain a writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 It is not in dispute that effective measures were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner possesses a statutory right to assail the impugned sale notice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. The jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, circumscribed, and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner lies in invoking the statutory forum provided under the Act. Hence, this court finds no justification to pass an interim order. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33263 WP No. 20114 of 2026 availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have a 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. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the 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.: 15