Writ Petition No. 18313 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22254 WP No. 18313 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18313 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA,
Legal Reasoning
W/O. SRI MUNIYANNA V., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SRI VENKATESH, S/O. SRI MUNIYANNA V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH R/AT: NO.154, 5TH CROSS, MALLASANDRA, SHETTIHALLI CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560 057. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.6, 6TH CROSS, J.S. NAGAR, SARASAWATHIPURA, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 096. (BY SRI. G NATARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES, ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS ACT. HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT NO.239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 BRANCH OFFICE AT Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22254 WP No. 18313 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, (ERSTWHILE ANDHRA BANK) BANGALORE CITY BRANCH, NO.24, KESHAV NIVAS, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 042. NOW PRESENTED BY ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, NO.1/1, GROUND FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMPIGE, 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK, ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, BENGALURU NORTH, NO.1234, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, OPP. CHANDRA LAYOUT BUS STOP, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 040. (BY SRI. PRABHU RAO C B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DTD IMPUGNED 30.05.2025 VIDE ANNX-K INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE NOTICE DTD 12.05.2025 QUASH THE CORRESPONDENT DTD 17.06.2025 VIDE ANNX-L. NOTICE/PROCEEDINGS E-AUCTION THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22254 WP No. 18313 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned e-auction notice dated 30.05.2025. He has sought for certain other reliefs as well. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have paid the dues in entirety to the bank and accordingly, the bank ought to have dropped the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Prabhu Rao C.B., appearing for the respondent-Bank would submit that auction was held on 30.05.2025, sale has been confirmed and sale certificate has been issued. 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: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22254 WP No. 18313 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, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22254 WP No. 18313 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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:22254 WP No. 18313 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." 5. 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. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both sides are kept open. NP Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE