- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378832024 NC: 2026:KHC:38765 WP No. 17739 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 17739 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. P.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. P.NALAGONDA RAIDU, NO.349, 15TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE THE RUBY, 10TH FLOOR, 29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI-400028. REPRSENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER / MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALSO AT: ASSET RECONSTURCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD., UNIT NO.3, 3RD FLOOR, VISHISHTA ARCADE, NO.2243, 23RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560070. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378832024 NC: 2026:KHC:38765 WP No. 17739 of 2024 2. MRS. PREMALATHAKAPSE, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. LATE C.V.KAPSE, VILLA NO A-9, RANKAVILLA, OPPO RANKA COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BEGNALURU-560076. ALSO AT: NO.34/3, DASAPPA GARDEN, NEAR HMT LAYOUT, RT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560076. 3. MRS. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA GONAL BAGETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O. GONAL BAGETTAPPA LINGAM, VILLA NO.A-6, OPPO RANKA COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560076. ALSO AT: VILLA NO.A9, OPPO RANKA COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGAURU, KARNATAKA-560076. 4. MR. KHAMER SHARIFF, S/O. SRI. P.NALAGONDA RAIDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.349, 15TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED SULAIMAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHAZIA TABASSUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378832024 NC: 2026:KHC:38765 WP No. 17739 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.B.C.Avinash, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Mohammed Sulaiman, counsel on behalf of Smt.Shazia Tabassum, for respondent No.4 appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) To set aside the order dated 31.05.2024 in S.A.No.91 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru is at Annexure-A. (b) To quash the notice of auction sale dated 30.12.2022 issued by the 1st respondent vide Ref No.ARCIL/BNG/4710/SN/2022-23 at Annexure-B publication of public notice - auction cum sale of properties dated 30.12.2022 is at Annexure-B1, sale - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378832024 NC: 2026:KHC:38765 WP No. 17739 of 2024 confirmation dated 19.1.2023 issued by the 1st respondent is at Annexure-C. (c) Any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has presented several contentions. It is argued that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the S.A. solely on the ground that the petitioner is not related to the financial facility availed by the second respondent. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the application on merits. Urging additional grounds counsel submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. He placed reliance on the following decision: JAGADISH SINGH VS. HEERALAL reported in AIR 2014 SC 371. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378832024 NC: 2026:KHC:38765 WP No. 17739 of 2024 Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there is an statutory alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRAT. Hence, he submits that the petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The principal ground on which this court is asked to quash the impugned order is that the petitioner is a third party and he had filed an appeal under Section 17. However, the Tribunal on an erroneous approach held that the petitioner being a third party cannot maintain an application under Section 17 of the DRT Act. A perusal of the writ papers reflect that the petitioner has a grievance about the order passed by the DRT. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT may file an appeal before DRAT. In the present case, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and have invoked the writ jurisdiction. As there is - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010378832024 NC: 2026:KHC:38765 WP No. 17739 of 2024 an alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRAT. This Court declines to exercise the discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits. 6. 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.: 25