(BY SRI. SRINIVASA SETTY K., ADVOCATE) v. AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA SETTY K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH II (ARM-II), 2ND FLOOR, SPENCER TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REP. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR YADAVA.

2. CHIEF MANAGER CANARA BANK, KOLAR MAIN ROAD, BANGARPET-563114. KOLAR DISTRICT. (BY SRI. RANJAN KELKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN …RESPONDENTS RELIEFS. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Srinivasa Setty.K., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ranjan Kelkar., counsel for caveator/ respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these: The demand notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to petitioner No.1 on 30.04.2021, to petitioner No.2 on 03.04.2021 and to petitioner No.3 on

30.04.2021. The possession notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to petitioner No.1 on

10.02.2022 and to petitioner No.2 on 11.02.2022. The petitioners approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.135/2022, petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.131/2025 and petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.143/2022 and the same withdrawn on 07.03.2026 and 09.03.2022. After withdrawing the writ petitions before the Apex Court, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court in - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR W.P.No.9123/2022. This Court vide order dated: 05.05.2022 had granted interim order and the petition was disposed of

08.04.2026 with a liberty to reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) by the respondent Bank within 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioners replied to the notice under Section 13(2) on 05.05.2026. The Bank gave counter reply on

11.05.2026. As the matter stood thus, the Bank issued notice under Section 13(4) r/w. Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on

14.05.2026 to petitioner No.2. It is stated that petitioners 1 and 3 have not received any notice as of today. However, the writ petition is filed by all the petitioners seeking the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the impugned possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, bearing Ref: ARMII/PN/ASLAM/540/2025-2026 dated:09.01.2026 vide ANNEXURE-G4 issued by the Respondent No.1- Bank, pertaining to the petitioner No.1; ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the impugned possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, bearing Ref: - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR ARMII/PN/AZEEZ/539/2025-2026 dated:09.01.2026 vide ANNEXURE-G5 issued by the Respondent No.1- Bank, pertaining to the petitioner No.2, iii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the impugned possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, bearing Ref: No. POSSESSION/0485285005219 dated: 13.07.2022 vide ANNEXURE-G2 issued by the Respondent No.2- Bank, pertaining to the petitioner No.3, iv. Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the impugned Sale Notice bearing Ref: No.ARMII/SN/01/2026-27 dated: 14.05.2026 vide ANNEXURE-M issued by the Respondent No.1- Bank, pertaining to the petitioner No.2, v. Issue such other writ or writs or pass any such order or orders as this Honourable court may deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for respondent No.1 argued the matter on the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that as against - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR the sale notice there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. Counsel, therefore, submits that the petition may be dismissed. Counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance on the following decisions.

1. UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.10145/2010.

2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER V/S. MATHEW.K.C., IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1281/2018.

3. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED V/S. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.257-259/2022.

4. M/S.SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. AND ORS. V/S. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP AND ANOTHER ETC., ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.22021- 22022/2022.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR

5. After arguing the matter for sometime, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition may be dismissed as not pressed as far as petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned. When queried, counsel for the petitioners submits that a conscious decision is taken about non pressing of the petition as far as petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned and if an order is passed the petitioners shall not seek review of the order or modification of the order. The oral submission is placed on record. As the counsel on record has taken a conscious decision about the non pressing of the petition, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not pressed as far as petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned.

6. The grievance of petitioner No.2 in the present writ petition is about issuance of notice under Section 13(4) r/w. Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 14.05.2026 vide Annexure-M. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR

7. The authorized officer of the Canara Bank has issued notice under Section 13(4) r/w. Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The grievance of petitioner No.2 is about the issuance of the e-auction sale notice issued under Section 13(4) r/w. Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The relief sought by petitioner No.2 cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a sale notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the Banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28834 WP No. 16055 of 2026 HC-KAR It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned. Because of rejection of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1