- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5502 WP No. 2751 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 2751 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MR. D A RAJU S/O ANTHONY DAS AGED 72 YEARS, R/AT 801, 76TH A CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. 2. MRS. SUNITHA RAJ D/O D.A RAJU AGED 35 YEARS, R/A 801, 76TH A CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. 3. MR. ARVIND RAJ S/O D.A RAJU AGED 39 YEARS, R/A 801, 76TH A CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE) AND: THE GRAIN MERCHANT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5502 WP No. 2751 of 2026 CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K V LOKESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE AUCTION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent-Bank not to proceed with the auction of the schedule property of the petitioners and also sought for quashing the sale notice dated 26.12.2025 vide Annexure-A. 2. The petitioners borrowed a loan from the respondent-Bank and the petitioners were unable to pay the loan amount. The respondents initiated recovery - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5502 WP No. 2751 of 2026 proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). 3. When a specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioners are willing to pay the entire outstanding dues, he expressed inability to pay the entire outstanding dues. 4. The petitioners are challenging the sale notice, though the petitioners have an equal efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners, without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others1. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5502 WP No. 2751 of 2026 5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35