Writ Petition No. 26334 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21030 WP No. 26334 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 26334 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS ROOPA NANJUNDA KALBURGI W/O ANANTHA SATHEESHA MAGAJI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. SRI ANANTHA SATHEESHA MAGAJI S/O ANANTHA M G AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1 AND 1/1 PARK WEST, MC 1501, 15TH FLOOR BINNY MILLS, HOSAKERE ROAD BENGALURU 560023.
Legal Reasoning
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 Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21030 WP No. 26334 of 2024 HC-KAR 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." 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21030 WP No. 26334 of 2024 HC-KAR impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open. 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 NP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
Arguments
(BY SRI. B SOMESEKAR NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARUR VYSYA BANK DIVISIONAL OFFICE BUILDING NO 6, SHRI VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD NEAR SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE V V PURAM, BENGALURU 560004 REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE DTD 23.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AS PER ANNX-A HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL. Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21030 WP No. 26334 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 The petitioner has called in question the sale notice dated 23.08.2024 issued by the respondent at Annexure-A. The petitioners have also sought for directions to the respondent- Bank not to take possession of the petition schedule property. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that efforts have been made to clear the loan however, due to bonafide reasons, they are unable to arrange necessary funds. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that auction sale is completed on 13.09.2024 itself and the sale is confirmed. However, in light of the interim order passed, the sale certificate is not issued. It is further submitted that right of redemption cannot now be reagitated in light of auction proceedings have been completed in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21030 WP No. 26334 of 2024 HC-KAR 4. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that the interim order dated 17.04.2025 was passed on a condition that the entire amount would be deposited or before 02.06.2025 or else the interim order would get vacated and the bank could issue sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser on 03.06.2025. 5. It is submitted that the conditions imposed in the interim order not having been complied with, the petition requires to be rejected on such ground alone. 6. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21030 WP No. 26334 of 2024 HC-KAR matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other