- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010217842025 NC: 2026:KHC:37062 WP No. 9521 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9521 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. MUNI VIJAYKUMAR. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, E 4TH CROSS, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, B NARAYANAPURA BAFINA GARMENTS BENGALURU - 560 016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKSHEPA H.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RISHI N UMESH.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S HIRANANDANI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE: 514 DALAMAL TOWERS, 211, FPJ MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 CORPORATE OFFICE: 9TH FLOOR SIGMA HIRANANDANI BUSINESS PARK, TECHNOLOGY STREET, PAWAI MUMBAI - 400 076. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010217842025 NC: 2026:KHC:37062 WP No. 9521 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Nikshepa H.N., counsel on behalf of Sri. Rishi N Umesh, for the petitioner and Sri. B.C.Avinash, counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Set aside the Order dated 13/01/2025 passed under Sec 14 of SARFAESI Act 2002, as Annexure-C by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate BENGALURU. b) Pass any other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the 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. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010217842025 NC: 2026:KHC:37062 WP No. 9521 of 2025 4. Suffice it to note that the respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.50645/2024 and the Court vide order dated:13.01.2025 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. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010217842025 NC: 2026:KHC:37062 WP No. 9521 of 2025 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 discretionary powers. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. 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 PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20