Dismissed

Sri a N Sathyanarayana Gowda v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2022WP/286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The High Court noted the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 and relied on Supreme Court precedents to dispose of the petition with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Sri a N Sathyanarayana Gowda Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. A.N.SATHYANARAYANA GOWDA S/O LATE NAGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT SY.NO.29, HARANAHALLI ROAD, AYANURU KOTE, AYANURU SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577211

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.SANDHYA.U.PRABHU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KUMSI BRANCH, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577423

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE ORDER OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIMOGGA, IN CRL.MISC.NO.514/2021 DTD 02.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this court under Article 226

¶19

and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 02.12.2021 in Crl.Misc No.514/2021 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶20

Heard learned counsel Smt.Sandhya U.Prabhu for petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶21

This Court on 10.01.2022 while issuing emergent notice to the respondent-Bank passed conditional interim order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within two weeks and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within next two weeks and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within next two weeks. It is submitted that the petitioner complied the first part of the interim order and thereafter filed I.A.No.1/2022 for extension of time which was allowed by this Court on 22.02.2022. Even after the extension of time, the petitioner has failed to comply

¶22

¶23

the interim order. Again on 17.03.2022 I.A.No.2/2022 is filed seeking extension of time. There is no participation to extend the time as sought.

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 17 of the Act provides alternate remedy to the petitioner to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal. When the Act provides for alternative remedy this Court, normally would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

The Hon’ble Apex Court under its decision in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 44 reads as follows;

¶26

“33. In the case of City and Industrial Development Corpn v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168, it was observed by this Court in paragraph 30 that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether……. (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute.”

¶27

¶28

34. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra) after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court in the Cases of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co.Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 and State Bank of India v. Allied Chemical Laboratories, (2006) 9 SCC 252 while upholding the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, it was observed that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.

¶29

35. Similar view has been expressed by this Court is subsequent decisions in the case of General Manager, Sri. Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited (supra) as well as in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra).”

¶30

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of

¶31

with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

VS/HDK

Sri a N Sathyanarayana Gowda v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a N Sathyanarayana Gowda v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Raghunath Vs the Authorized Officer

Mythreyi Mahila Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hombale Constructions and Estate Private Limited Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd. (Concor)

Karnataka Recreation Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Nityajeevana Rao G Vs the State of Karnataka