Writ Petition No. 25489 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 25489 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. SHYAMALA REDDY W/O LATE DR. S.G. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 2. DR. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE DR. S.G. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.17, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: THE MANAGER CANARA BANK, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008. (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REVERT THE SALE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR THE SALE OR ISSUE OF PUBLIC NOTICE WAS NOT COMMUNICATED EXCEPT CREDITING THE AMOUNT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 11.09.2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G 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 Heard Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The present petition is filed seeking issuance of mandamus directing the respondent to reverse the sale that is stated to have been conducted by the respondent and issuance of writ of mandamus is also sought to direct the respondent to consider the legal notice served to the respondent dated 08.09.2024. Further direction is sought for a direction against the respondent not to issue any sale certificate or sale deed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR 3. Various contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioners including that there are procedural irregularities, that valuation of the property prior to auction has not been made as per Rules. It is also submitted that petitioners would make every effort to clear the entire loan amount. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that auction has been conducted and sale certificate has been issued. Accordingly in the light of Judgment in the case of Celir LLP V. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, the right of retention is foreclosed. Even otherwise petitioners ought to have availed of the substantive remedy under the SARFAESI Act. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR 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. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioners are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
Decision
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 take any precipitative steps for a period of three weeks from today. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR 9. The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioners to avail of their 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 petitioners may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 10. I.A.2/2024 has been filed by the auction purchasers. In the light of the disposal of the main matter itself relegating the petitioners to avail substantive remedy, no order needs to be passed on the impleading application. All contentions of the petitioners including the amendment application as well as respondent-bank are kept open to be adjudicated as per law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20397 WP No. 25489 of 2024 HC-KAR Needless to state that the time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately when the point of limitation is to be considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal when the petitioners approach the said authority. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12