(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

M/S. JAINKAR AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NO.45/E, SARGUR VILLAGE, KAGALAVADI ROAD, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 117. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. B.H. GUNDE GOWDA, S/O H. HUCCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.158, A BLOCK, MAHADEVAPURA, MANANDAVADI ROAD, N H PALYA POST, MYSURU – 570 068. IT IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1958(1) (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA CHAMARAJANAGARA BRANCH, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 313. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / BRANCH MANAGER, SRI. KRISHNAN KANT RASTOGI, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH (SARB), BENGALURU – 560 002. (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.05.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.36/2023 PASSED BY - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26841 WP No. 14773 of 2024 THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-C HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the similar nature quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2023 in Crl. Misc.No.36/2023 and CJM, passed Chamarajanagara vide Annexure – C holding the same is illegal and without jurisdiction; the Senior Civil Judge b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the similar nature directing the respondent bank to re-deliver possession in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing Junger No.216, Assessment No.153, measuring East to West : 234 feet and North to South : 185 feet situated at Kagalavadi Road, Chandakavadi Village, Chamarajanagara Taluk and District; Basappanapalya Hobli, c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

#3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in the light of availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26841 WP No. 14773 of 2024 Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act’) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional DRT under Section 17 of the said Act of 2002 by filing an appeal in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. Further, if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

#4. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

#5. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54