- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33586 WP No. 2796 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 2796 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. LINK MARBLES AND GRANITES PVT. LTD., (INCORPORATE COMPANIES ACT, 1956), NO.99, DIAMOND NEST, 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO.103, BDA MAIN, N.R.COLONY AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU-560017. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GURUMEET SINGH MODI. 2. SRI. GURUMEET SINGH MODI, DIRECTOR, LINK MARBLE AND GRANITE PVT. LTD., S/O. D.S.MODI, NO.45 AND 46, GEETHANJALI LAYOUT, HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560075. 3. MRS. JASPREET KAUR MODI, W/O. GURMEET SINGH MODI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.45 AND 46, GEETHANJALI LAYOUT, HAL III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560075. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJA NAIDU A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33586 WP No. 2796 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI. STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER G.V.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSET MANAGEMENT BENGALURU BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLE BUILDING, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE CAMPUS, NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY D., 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Krishika Vaishnav., counsel on behalf of Sri.Nagaraja Naidu.A., for the petitioners and Sri.Narayana Swamy.D., counsel for respondent No.1 appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33586 WP No. 2796 of 2023 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 20.04.2022 vide Annexure-A issued under Section 13(2) bearing No.SAMB/CLO-4/RUP/32 of the SARFEASI Act, 2002 and Annexure-A1 bearing No.SAMB/CLO-4/RUP/34 dated 20.04.2022 as being illegal and in contravention to the provisions of law. (ii) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned possession notice under section 13(4) dated 11.07.2022 vide Annexure-B issued bearing No.39604683175/39629797060/64009456616 notice dated 01.08.2022 bearing No. 39604683175/39629717060/64009456616 vide Annexure-B1, notice dated 01.08.2022 bearing No.39604683175/39629797060/ 64009456616 vide Annexure-B2 and notice dated 16.08.2022 bearing No. 39604683175/39629797060/64009456616 vide Annexure-B3 as being illegal, arbitrary and in contravention to the provisions of law. (iii) Consequently, direct them to remove the locks over the schedule B property and hand over possession of the schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33586 WP No. 2796 of 2023 (iv) Grant such other relief/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. A demand notice was issued subsequently, the authorized officer of the Bank issued possession notices. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the possession notices. 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33586 WP No. 2796 of 2023 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33586 WP No. 2796 of 2023 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. The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if the law permits and if so advised. 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.: 45