- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 11839 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHALINGAM P. S/O. PERIYEPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. MAHALINGAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.6/1, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, SUNEKANAHALLI, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560019 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHAMRAO SHARANAPPA., ADV.) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA N. R. ROAD BRANCH, BENGALURU REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER SRI. KUMAR GAUREV S/O. NARESH PODDAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S., ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 11.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: *** - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bangaluru, (for short ‘the ACJM’) in Crl.Misc.No.11130/2024 vide Annexure-B. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioners have obtained the house loan of Rs.18,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank on 08.12.2014. The petitioners regularly paid the EMI till 2021-22. In the year 2021-22, because of health issues and financial crisis, the petitioners were unable to deposit the EMI within the stipulated period. The respondent-Bank issued a demand notice on 15.07.2022. After the receipt of demand notice, the petitioners have paid Rs.7,13,000/- amount from the year 2022 to 2024, and requested the respondent bank to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 give some breathing time to pay the remaining amount. The respondent bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) in Crl.Misc.No.11130/2024 on the file of learned XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. The ACJM allowed the petition vide order dated 11.03.2025. Pursuant to the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.11130/2024, the respondent issued a possession notice on 26.03.2025. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.11130/2024, filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and also the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have paid the amount to the said bank. The said aspect was not considered by the respondent-Bank - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 and obtained an impugned order in Crl.Misc.No.11130/2024. The action of the respondent in initiating the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is arbitrary and erroneous. He also submitted that the petitioners have also paid a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank submits that whatever the amount deposited by the petitioners has been credited to his account and he also submits that the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is appealable. He submits that the petitioners have an equal efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order. The petitioners without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, filed this writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners obtained a loan from the respondent-Bank for the construction of a house. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have paid the part of the loan amount. The said amount has not been adjusted towards the loan account. The respondent bank contended that the petitioners are the defaulter and they have not paid the EMI amount within the time stipulated. The respondent- Bank initiated a recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.11130/2024 and the notice was issued to the petitioners. The ACJM passed an order on 11.03.2025. The said order can be challenged under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Pursuant to the order passed by the ACJM, the petitioners without exhausting an equal efficacious remedy provided - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, filed this writ petition. 8. In view of proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RIKHAB CHAND JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA IN C.A.NO.6719 OF 2012 disposed off on 12.11.2025, held that if a remedy is available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be bye-passed. 9. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RIKHAB CHAND JAIN (SUPRA), I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. A liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within one month from today, if so advised. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7886 WP No. 11839 of 2025 11. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB