Writ Petition No. 19964 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 19964 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MS. SUNITHA MAHESH GOWDA, W/O HANUMANTHA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 67, VURANJUNYA TEMPLE, 1ST CROSS ROAD, THIRUMALAPURA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 073. 2. MR. HANUMANTHA GOWDA S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 67, VURANJUNYA TEMPLE, 1ST CROSS ROAD, THIRUMALAPURA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 073. (BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: M/S LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., NO.15/1, HAYAS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND ASSOCIATE AUTHORISED OFFICER (THE RESPONDENT BANK REGISTERED OF FINANCIAL SERVICE ACT, 1986)
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. UMASHANKARA S, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 03/06/2025 INFORMING ABOUT AUCTION OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY SCHEDULED ON 07/07/2025 FROM 10 AM TO 3 PM ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the E-auction Sale Notice dated 03.06.2025. The petitioners have raised various contentions as regards the procedural irregularities. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that he is exploring the possibility of One Time Settlement with the Bank. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR 3. Learned counsel Sri Umashankar.S appearing for the respondent submits that auction that was scheduled on 07.07.2025 was fruitful and there is a successful bidder in the auction proceedings. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners may avail of substantive remedy by approaching the DRT under Section 17 if aggrieved. 5. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent - Bank not to issue sale certificate for a period of three weeks from today while clarifying that there is no stay of the confirmation of sale auction. 9. 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24770 WP No. 19964 of 2025 HC-KAR operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 10. 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 DHA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK