- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19780-DB WA No. 1841 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1841 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. JANATHA SEVA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD No.24, SUVARNA BHAVANA 1ST MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGAR VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.V. LOKESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KUSUMA R W/O GANGADHAR MURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PARTNER OF NANDI LOGISTICS No.322, 3RD A CROSS ROAD 2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.34008/2025 DATED 12/11/2025 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19780-DB WA No. 1841 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34008/2025 (GM-DRT). 2. The respondent had preferred the said writ petition impugning an order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru [DRT] in S.A.No.72/2025. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed the writ petitioner's prayer for an interim order, however, did not grant any ad interim relief. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the observations made in the impugned order to the effect that if a fraud is alleged, even though there is an alternative remedy of approaching the DRT, it is settled law, that the court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. There is no cavil that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide. The jurisdiction of the court to entertain a writ petition is not ousted on the ground that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19780-DB WA No. 1841 of 2025 there is an equally efficacious alternate remedy. However, it is well settled that subject to certain exceptions, the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction in cases where an alternative remedy is available. 5. The contention whether in the given facts, the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not foreclosed by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. It is open for the parties to advance such contentions as they are advised. No interference of this Court in this proceeding is warranted at this stage. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. 7. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10