Writ Petition No. 26821 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 26821 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ROOPESH PROVISION STORES REPRESENTED BY: SRI RANGAWAMY S/O NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT: NO.2345, IST STAGE DEVANNUR LAYOUT, N R MOHALLA MYSURU-570 019 REGISTERED BY 1953 PROVISION STORES (BY SRI. MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER … PETITIONER ARKA FINCAP LIMITED (MANAGER) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS OFFICE REIGSTERED AT: NO.2504, ONE LODHA PALACE S B MARG, LOWER PAREL MUMBAI-400 013 COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT: WEKREATE SPACE, NO.658 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR 2ND FLOOR, MIG-12, BLOCK NO.9 VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570 006 … RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. VEDAVATHI B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R IN CP NO.16507/2024; SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 23.08.2024 IN CRL. MISC.NO. 150/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AT 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 Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short 'the Act') in Crl. Misc. No. 150/2024. 2. Various contentions have been raised including regarding the procedure followed as well as the service of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- has been paid and the Bank may be directed to consider the proposal for settlement. 3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that as against the order in Crl. Misc. No. 150/2024, appropriate proceedings have been initiated before the DRT. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the said application is still to come up before the DRT. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is substantive remedy available as against the measure under Section 14 by approaching the DRT under Section 17 of the Act. 5. In light of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order of the Magistrate passed under Section 14 of the Act, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy under the Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR 6. 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 contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 contentions raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of the petitioner including the validity of the auction and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23932 WP No. 26821 of 2024 HC-KAR issuance of sale certificate as raised in the present proceedings are kept open to be raised before the DRT in an appropriate manner. 9. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent not to take any precipitative steps for a period of one week from the date of release of this order. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP