CORPORATION LIMITED v. SRI. JAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE)

SRI. CHELARAM CHOUDHARY S/O MR. SANGRAMJI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.9, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 060 (BY SRI. N R NAIK., ADVOCATE) AND: DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49613 WP No. 28257 of 2025 HC-KAR REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD-7TH FLOOR, DREAMS MALL, FIRST FLOOR L. B. S. MARG, BHANDUP (WEST) MUMBAI – 400 078 BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.62, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE IDBI BANK 2ND BLOCK, DR RAJ KUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER (BY SMT. SREEDEVI K.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RECEIVE THE BALANCE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.23,21,506/- ANNEXURE-E AND HAND OVER KEY OF THE PREMISES WHICH IS BELONGS TO THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49613 WP No. 28257 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

The petitioner prays this Hon’ble Court be pleased to; a) To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to receive the balance loan amount of Rs.23,21,506/- Annexure-E and hand over key of the premises which is belongs to the petitioners; b) To call for records and grant such other relief/s deems fit by this Hon’ble Court.

2. It is a petition filed by the borrowers with the averments that the borrowers have availed a loan of Rs.27,00,000/- on 01.10.2014 and borrowers have committed default in repayment of the loan amount. In the petition averments, it is stated that due to non-payment of the loan amount, symbolic possession was taken by the bank on

26.02.2019. Thereafter, respondent Crl. Misc. No.555/2019 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and obtained an order dated 01.10.2019 as per Annexure-A. According to the petition averments, on 09.09.2025 the respondent/bank took actual - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49613 WP No. 28257 of 2025 HC-KAR possession of the property mortgaged to the bank. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the mortgaged property is a residential house. The bank has forcefully taken possession of the property and even belongings of the petitioners and their family is still in the said house. The petitioners are to pay Rs.30,00,000/- towards outstanding amount of loan. With these reasons, prayed to direct the bank to hand over the key of the said property in favour of the petitioners after receiving Rs.30,00,000/- which was tendered to the bank in the form of a DD by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent/bank submits that the petitioners are chronic defaulter. The outstanding last more than 10 years. The respondent/bank did not take possession immediately after passing of the orders in Crl. Misc. No.555/2019 to give an opportunity to the petitioners to repay the said amount. Hence, contention is not tenable. The belongings of the petitioners is concerned, the bank is ready to permit them to take the belongings kept inside the said house. Moreover, efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under the provisions of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49613 WP No. 28257 of 2025 HC-KAR SARFAESI Act and they cannot approach this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India that suffice to reject the writ petition.

The facts stated above are not in serious dispute. The petitioner have borrowed from the bank during the year 2014 and failed the same. Therefore, respondent/bank took an initiated action under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and in accordance with the law, took possession of the property during November 2023. The said act of the bank cannot be considered as illegal. Moreover, as rightly contented, an efficacious remedy available to the petitioners under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, they could have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking appropriate relief, if the action taken by the bank is illegal or contrary to the provisions of law. When an efficacious remedy is available, petitioners shall not approach the High Court seeking relief under extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The said principle of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49613 WP No. 28257 of 2025 HC-KAR India versus Saraswathi Tandon1. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is not maintainable.

Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is rejected. ii. Petitioners are given liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if so advised seeking appropriate relief. iii. Pending I.As. shall stand disposed off. SD/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BN/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8 1 AIR 2010 SC 3413