- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533242024 NC: 2026:KHC:42157 WP No. 25087 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 25087 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HORZEE ENTERPRISES, HAVING OFFICER OF GROUND FLOOR, NO.131, 18TH CROSS, RAMESH NAGAR, MALLATHALLI, BENGALURU-560037. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MADHUSUDAN B. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNA RAJU 2. MRS. C.RUKMINIYAMMA, W/O. BALAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, NO.131, 18TH CROSS, RAMESH NAGAR, MALLATHALLI, BENGALURU-560037. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1234, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560040. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRABHU RAO C.B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533242024 NC: 2026:KHC:42157 WP No. 25087 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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Bhargava D.Bhat, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Prabhu Rao C.B., counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.50207/2024 by the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (Annexure-A); (b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to accept the amounts due in respect of the loan obtained by the respondent from the petitioner and close the said loan account; (c) Pass any other order as the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533242024 NC: 2026:KHC:42157 WP No. 25087 of 2024 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.50207/2024 and the Court vide order dated: 19.08.2024 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. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533242024 NC: 2026:KHC:42157 WP No. 25087 of 2024 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 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. 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.: 27