- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010375632024 NC: 2026:KHC:37634 WP No. 18354 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18354 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MR. H.K.PRADEEP, S/O. LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.209, 5TH 'B' CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064. 2. SMT. M.VARALAKSHMI, D/O. MANDLI CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, REISIDING AT NO.482, 15TH CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064. 3. SMT. KOKILA, W/O. MUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6TH 'A' CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKHAR B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., NO.52, TURF CLUB, RACE COURSE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010375632024 NC: 2026:KHC:37634 WP No. 18354 of 2024 GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. SOMASEKHARAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064. 3. MR. G.MURALI, S/O. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064. 4. MR. C.GIRINATH, S/O. CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, VANNARPET, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AVINASH B.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010375632024 NC: 2026:KHC:37634 WP No. 18354 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Chandrasekhar B., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Avinash B.C., counsel for respondent No.1 appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Call for records in Crl.Misc.No.584/2018 (filed by the respondent No.1 Bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002) pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at BENGALURU (CMM). (b) Set aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at BENGALURU (CMM) in Crl.Misc.No.584/2018 (filed by the respondent No.1 Bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002) as per Annexure-A. (c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010375632024 NC: 2026:KHC:37634 WP No. 18354 of 2024 4. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.584/2018 and the Court vide order dated:01.09.2018 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 AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010375632024 NC: 2026:KHC:37634 WP No. 18354 of 2024 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 power under writ jurisdiction. The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal 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.: 18