- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465022022 NC: 2026:KHC:45709 WP No. 19930 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 19930 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SUDHA SILK HOUSE, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER (PRINCIPAL BORROWER) MR. D.V.SHEKAR, S/O. LATE D.VENKATARATHNAMR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.94, 1ST FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560022. 2. M/S. SUDHA AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER (PRINCIPAL BORROWER) MR. D.V.SHEKAR, S/O. LATE D.VENKATARATHNAMR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.94, 1ST FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY PANKAJ GOTAWAT, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, RAHEJA TOWERS, NO.26-27, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHABALESHWAR G.C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465022022 NC: 2026:KHC:45709 WP No. 19930 of 2022 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.V.Mohan, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Manoj K., counsel on behalf of Sri.Mahabaleshwar G.C., for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) To quash the impugned possession notice (Annexure: A) dated 06.06.2022 issued by the respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property in the interest of justice; (ii) To pass any such orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances stated above in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465022022 NC: 2026:KHC:45709 WP No. 19930 of 2022 4. The authorized officer of the Bank issued possession notice on 06.06.2022. The petitioners 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, 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: KAHC010465022022 NC: 2026:KHC:45709 WP No. 19930 of 2022 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. 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 power under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010465022022 NC: 2026:KHC:45709 WP No. 19930 of 2022 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners may approach appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. 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.: 14