- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20539 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. CHANDRAKANTH H., S/O. NARAYAN KANAKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.3-22, HARAPALLA HOME, NELYADI POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574229. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.K.SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER VISHWAKARMA SAHAKARA BANK LTD., CARSTREET, MANGALURU-575001. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 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: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.G.K.Shiva Prakash, counsel for the petitioner appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, it is heard: 3. The writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue an orders /direction in the name of the writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned notice dated 05.06.2026 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-C. (b) To direct the respondent bank to consider one time settlement (OTS) requests of the petitioner. (c) To pass such other order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The authorized officer had issued sale notice under Rule 8(6) on 05.06.2026. The petitioner grievance is about the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026 issuance of the 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 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026 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 rejected. Because of rejection of 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.: 21