Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26497 (KAR)

SHRI. NAGARATHINAM KUPPUSWAMY v. BANK OF BARODA

WP/18307/2026 · 2026-07-06

Jyoti M

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33522 WP No. 18307 of 2026 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. 18307 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NAGARATHINAM KUPPUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. SHRI G.KUPPUSWAMY, 2. SMT. MEGHA V., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O. SHRI NAGARATHINAM KUPPUSWAMY, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, 1ST MAIN, GARDEN SCHOOL ROAD, MANJUNATHNAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA, VASANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NIKHIL D.KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANK OF BARODA, BANASHANKARI BRANCH, NO.6 AND 7/1, 80 FT ROAD, OPP. SRINIVASANAGAR BUS STOP, BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560050, AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. M/S. SUNIL ENTERPRISES, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NO.10/2-38, 1ST CROSS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33522 WP No. 18307 of 2026 RUDRAPPA GARDEN, MYSORE ROAD, KASTURIBA NAGAR, GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU-560026. REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SHRI. SUNIL C.C., 3. SRI. BASAVARAJ, MAJOR, S/O. NOT KNOWN, NO.252/A, 1ST CROSS, DODDAGOWDANAPALYA, SUBRAMANIYAPURA, UTTARAHALLI POST, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SERVICE STATION, BENGALURU-560061. …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.Nikhil D.Kamath, counsel 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:33522 WP No. 18307 of 2026 (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order direction by quashing the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.8070/2025 which is produced and marked as Annexure-A to this writ petition. (b) Declare that no valid mortgage or security interest exists over the petitioners' schedule property. (c) Grant such other order/s which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.8070/2025 and the Court vide order dated:27.11.2025 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 litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33522 WP No. 18307 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 with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33522 WP No. 18307 of 2026 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.: 6