Writ Petition No. 17232 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17232 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. M.N. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O RAMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO. 145, 60FT ROAD, BEML 5TH STAGE, NEAR SHAKTI HILLS RESORT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 096. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SMT. PRIYA P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
Legal Reasoning
KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., REPRSENTED BY MR. PRAKASH, ARB DIVISIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, NO. 6 SHRI VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, VV PURAM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 004. 2. M/S CUBATIC INFRA AND POWER (P) (L) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SATHIBABU THIPARTHI HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, DWARKA HEIGHTS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR PLOT NO. 17, JUBILEE ENCLAVE, MADHAPUR, HITECH CITY, HYDERABAD - 500 081. 3. MR. SATHIBABU THIPARTHI S/O SURAYANARAYANA THIPARTHI, RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 149, ESWAR VILLAS, NIZAMPET ROAD, KUKATPALLY, NIZAMPET, HYDERABAD - 500 072. 4. MRS. SAI DEEPTHI KESANA, W/O PHANI KUMAR GUDIDEVUNI, FLAT NO. 302, SAI KALYAN RESIDENCY, BANDARI LAYOUT, NEAR NRI COLLEGE, NIZAMPET, QUTUBULLAPUR, K.V.RANGAREDDY, HYDERABAD - 500 090. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 277 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO SET ASIDE ILLEGAL SALE CONDUCTED ON 11-3-25, ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS U/S.17(3) AND ALSO AS PER SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT (2018) 1 S.C.C. 626 IN AGARWAL TRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED V PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS, ON ALL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AS PER THE GROUNDS LISTED IN THE APPEAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has called in question the sale stated to have been conducted on 11.03.2025. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner including that the procedure under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has not been complied with. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner ought to have approached the DRT by way of appropriate proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. 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: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 4. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 5. 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. 6. 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 operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23694 WP No. 17232 of 2025 HC-KAR approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 7. 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. 8. Needless to state any action taken would be subject to orders to be passed in the appropriate proceedings. All contentions are kept open.
Decision
Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK