Writ Petition No. 7969 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7969 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR.PAHIM H D/O HUSSAIN M AGED 31 YEARS 2. SMT.MUMTHAJUNNISA B W/O HUSSAIN M AGED 52 YEARS 3. SRI.HUSSAIN M S/O MUSTAFA AGED 61 YEARS Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF #C DIVISION, HOSPITAL ROAD, GOPALAPURA BADAVANE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 598.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK RECOVERY AND LEGAL SECTION, …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR REGIOINAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, IUDP LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK RECOVERY AND LEGAL SECTION, REGIOINAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, IUDP LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577 501. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 R2 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO. KAGB/RO-CTA/R AND L/2024-25 (64815107063716) DATED 21.02.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the E-auction Sale Notice at Annexure-L. The petitioner has raised various contentions including financial stringency. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. The petitioner submits that they are ready to pay remaining dues if time is granted. 3. Learned counsel Sri T.P.Muthanna appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has substantive remedy in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as against the Sale Notice. 4. It is further submitted that at this point of time, the Bank would have to re-issue E-auction Sale Notice as the same was issued in February 2025. 5. After hearing the matter for sometime, in light of the contentions raised it is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are as follows: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 6. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 8. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent- bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of two weeks from today. 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive remedy and must not be considered to be an order passed on the basis of adjudication on merits. Upon the lapse of the time stipulated, the protection granted would cease to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23855 WP No. 7969 of 2025 HC-KAR operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 10. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately.
Decision
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41