- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 28199 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SRI. MANDIRA NO 91, 9TH MAIN, 100 FT MAIN ROAD BTM 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 029. REP BY ITS PARTNERS 2. SRI. ALAGESHAN N. REDDY S/O. NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PARTNER: M/S. SRI. MANDIRA 3. SMT. VEENA ALAGESHAN N. REDDY W/O. SRI. ALAGESHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PARTNER: M/S. SRI. MANDIRA BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301, JAI ROYAL PARK SAKETH NAGAR, HOODI RAILWAY STATION, AYYAPPA NAGAR, K.R. PURAM BANGALORE - 560 049. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 BANGALORE CITY BRANCH NO.22. J.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560 002. 2. MR. K. JAGADISH, MAJOR S/O. SRI. KALAIMANI (AUCTION PURCHASER) 3. MRS. S. UMA, MAJOR W/O. SRI. K.JAGADISH (AUCTION PURCHASER) BOTH ARE R/AT 634/1, 4TH C MAIN, 6TH B CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560 043. ALSO AT MR. K.JAGADISH AND SMT. S.UMA NO.2, SRINIVASA REDDY LAYOUT, BASAVANAGARA ROAD, HOODI MAHADEVEPURA POST BANGALORE 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATRAMANA M K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED IN S.A.NO.434/2015 AND IN S.A.NO.110/2017 ON 15.11.2023 ANNEXURE -A AND AS A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN R.A.NO.7/2023 ANNEXURE-B AND R.A.NO.6/2023 ANNEXURE-C ON DATED 30.05.2025, BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDERS PASSED ON 15.11.2023, ACCORDINGLY, BY SETTING ASIDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 THE ENTIRE MEASURES INITIATED U/S 13(2) AND U/S 13(4) OF THE ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: "a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the impugned orders passed in S.A.No.434/2015 and in S.A.No.110/2017 on 15.11.2023 Annexure - 'A' and as a consequential relief to set aside the orders passed in R.A.No.7/2023 Annexure - 'B' and R.A.No.6/2023 Annexure - 'C' on dated 30.05.2025, by modifying the impugned common orders passed on 15.11.2023, accordingly, by setting aside the entire measures initiated under Section 13(2) and u/s 13(4) of the Act. b. Direct the Respondent Bank to forthwith re- deliver possession of the scheduled property to the Petitioners as just; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 c. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of these proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed three Seuritisation applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Bengaluru i.e., S.A.No.434/2015 questioning the possession notice dated 10.09.2015 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short 'SARFAESI Act') and filed S.A.No.110/2017 questioning the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.50397/2016 and also filed S.A.No.136/2017 questioning the sale notice dated 01.03.2017 issued under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act by the respondent No.1/authorized officer. 3. The tribunal by order dated 15.11.2023 had dismissed S.A.No.434/2015 and S.A. No.110/2017. However, has allowed S.A. No.136/2017 by setting aside the sale notice dated 01.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed review - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 petitions seeking review of the orders passed in S.A.Nos.434/2015 and 110/2017. The review petitions were also dismissed by the *DRT. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when once the sale certificate is set aside, all the proceedings have to be set at naught and contrary to the orders passed by the *DRT, the bank has given possession of the property to the auction purchasers and auction purchasers are enjoying the property. As regards S.A.No.136/2017, the same was allowed by the *DRT. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Bank having remained silent for 400 days, filed an appeal before the DRAT. This conduct of the bank is seriously considered by the *DRT. It is submitted that, aggrieved by such high handed action on the part of the respondent No.1-Bank, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1- Bank submits that though the appeal was filed with a delay of 400 days, the DRAT has condoned the delay and the petitioner is contesting the matter before the Tribunal. He further submits * Corrected vide chamber order dated: 06/04/2026. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 that as regards S.A.Nos.434/2015 and 110/2017, the petitioner would also contest the same before the DRAT, which is an effective alternative remedy available under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that when an effective statutory remedy is available, the petitioner can not invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He also submits that in O.A. No.2142/2016, the *DRT has passed an order dated 08.04.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, a review application in R.A.No.08/2025 is filed and the same is pending consideration. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The *DRT has passed an order setting aside the impugned proceedings in S.A.No.136/2017. If the petitioner seeks execution of the said order, the remedy lies elsewhere in accordance with law. It is submitted that the bank has filed an appeal against that said order and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The same would be adjudicated by the DRAT in the pending appeal. 7. Coming to S.A.Nos.434/2015 and 110/2017, this Court is unable to discern any justifiable reason as to why the petitioner, without availing the statutory remedy before the * Corrected vide chamber order dated: 06/04/2026. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9496 WP No. 28199 of 2025 *DRAT, has approached this Cour by filing the present writ petitions. Except urging the matter on merits and referring to the alleged conduct of the Bank, no exceptional circumstance is made out. It is also relevant to note that the order passed in S.A.No.136/2017 is already assailed before the DRAT and the petitioner is contesting the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the availability of an effective alternative remedy before the DRAT. Accordingly this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. ii. All I.A.s in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 * Corrected vide chamber order dated: 06/04/2026.