- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33918 WP No. 16761 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. 16761 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. NAGESHWARI M., W/O. MR. C.MANJUNATHA, AGE 39 YEARS, RESIDE AT NO.59, 3RD CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560016. 2. MR. C.MANJUNATHA, S/O. CHINAPPA, AGE 43 YEARS, RESIDE AT NO.59, 3RD CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560016. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. V.SHAILAJA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AYYAPPA M.JALIHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FAIRWAY BUSINESS PARK, NO.10/1, 11/2 AND 12/2B, OFF DOMLUR, KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD, BENGALURU - 560071. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33918 WP No. 16761 of 2026 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 Smt.V.Shailaja, counsel on behalf of Sri.Ayyappa M.Jalihal, for the petitioners 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) Call for the entire records pertaining to the loan account of the Petitioners from the Respondent Bank. b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Demand Notice dated 20.12.2025 at Annexure-C issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Possession Notice dated 04.03.2026 at Annexure-E issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33918 WP No. 16761 of 2026 c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to furnish proper and complete statement accounts, calculation details and consider the of Notification issued by the respondent at Annexure-"C" and Annexure-"E". d) Restrain the Respondent Bank, its officials, agents or anybody claiming through it from dispossessing the Petitioners from the schedule property. e) Grant reasonable time to the Petitioners to regularize the loan account and clear the outstanding dues. f) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 4. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The authorized officer of the Bank issued demand notice on 20.12.2025 and possession notice on 04.03.2026. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the demand - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33918 WP No. 16761 of 2026 and possession notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) 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 relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand / possession 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33918 WP No. 16761 of 2026 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 Apex Court in Phoenix Case's has held that filing of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. It is also observed that whenever a notice is issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a litigant has statutory efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33918 WP No. 16761 of 2026 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.: 8