- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010168812024 NC: 2026:KHC:39699 WP No. 8904 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 8904 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S. BARKATH POHA INDUSTRY, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN NO.289, 90 AND 91, MOHAMMED ALI JOHAR LAYOUT, 3RD DIVISION, 3RD WARD, MAGANAHALLI ROAD, 5TH CROSS, MANDAKKIBATTI LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.HYDER ALI, S/O. LATE SHAUKATH ALI SAB, AGED 55 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. DYUTHI N.AAYASYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: BAPUJI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.120, HARDEKAR MANJAPPA RASTHE, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (THE BANK UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESH R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010168812024 NC: 2026:KHC:39699 WP No. 8904 of 2024 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.Dyuthi N.Aayasya, counsel on behalf of Sri.Vinod Kumar M., for the petitioner and Sri.Suresha R., counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued by the respondent - Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 12.02.2024. (b) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010168812024 NC: 2026:KHC:39699 WP No. 8904 of 2024 4. The authorized officer of the Bank had issued possession notice on 12.02.2024. The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. Any person/s aggrieved by issuance of notices under SARFAESI Act/ Rules 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 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 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. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010168812024 NC: 2026:KHC:39699 WP No. 8904 of 2024 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 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. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. 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.: 22