Writ Petition No. 17901 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17901 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. KANTHAMMA, W/O LATE SRI.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, A/A 70 YRS 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA MURTHY, W/O N. MURTHY, A/A 46 YRS, R/A NO. 23, APOORVA ENCLAVE, 80 FT ROAD, NEAR K.NARAYANAPURA CROSS, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU-560077. 3. SRI. G.R.KODANDARAMAREDDY, S/O LATE SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, A/A 42 YRS, PETITIONERS NO.1 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT SRI. GANESH POULTRY FARM, DODDAGANJUR VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-563125. (BY SRI. N MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA SADASHIVANAGAR BRANCH, NO. 163, 9TH MAIN, 3 RD CROSS,
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR RMV EXTN., SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560080.
Legal Reasoning
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER, SRI. VIKAS KUMAR YADAV. 2. SRI. G.R.LOKESH., S/O G.N.RAMAKRISHNAREDDY, AGED/ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A SRI. GANESH POULTRY FARM, DODDAGANJURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125, CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT. (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE POSSESSION ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 MAGISTRATE PASSED CHIKKABALLAPURA VIDE CRL. MISC. NO. 177/2023 i.e., ANNEXURE -B. JUDICIAL CHEIF THE BY 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 The petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure-B passed in Crl.Misc. No.177/2023. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. Various contentions have been raised including that there is no provision under the SARFAESI Act to proceed against the security interest created in agricultural land in terms of Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act as regards Item No. 1 of the Schedule Properties. Several other contentions have been raised regarding the procedure adopted by the bank leading to passing of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for respondent - Bank submits that the substantive remedy for the petitioner is before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the inapplicability of the provisions of SARFAESI Act insofar as the security interest created in agricultural land is a matter that needs to be enquired into and has relied on several judgments including the judgments of the Apex Court. It is submitted that the security interest created in agricultural land, ipso facto does not render unenforceable to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR SARFAESI Act and certain pre-conditions for claiming such exemption, are required to be demonstrated. 4. 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 5. 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. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 7. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent - Bank not to confirm the auction sale, if concluded as scheduled, for a period of 3 weeks from today. In light of the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the inapplicability of provisions of SARFAESI Act with respect to Item No.1 of the Schedule Properties, it is observed that steps under the SARFAESI Act insofar as Item No.1 of the Schedule Properties, would be taken only after recording a finding regarding the applicability of SARFAESI Act as regards Item No.1 of the Schedule Properties. As regards the other schedule properties, observations made above would apply. The respondent - Bank to furnish upon request the accounts extract and other documents as may be sought for. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR 8. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of the 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 matter may be proceeded uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 9. 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. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21978 WP No. 17901 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY DEAD BY LRS AND OTHERS VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER] 09.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The matter is moved 'For Being Spoken To'. In para No.7 after the 4th line, the following is to be inserted: "It is made clear that as regards item No.1, in the event the respondent - Bank takes a fresh measure under Section 13 and such action is challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the aspect of jurisdiction will have to be decided in the preliminary stage itself." The order dated 24.06.2025 is to be read in conjunction with the modification made today. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1