Gnana Shale Educational and Research Social Welfare… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Gnana Shale Educational and Research Social Welfare… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal dismissed as withdrawn; appellant permitted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) urging all pleas available to it, both on facts and in law. Bank's counsel recorded that symbolic possession of the mortgaged property was taken on 19.06.2025, with sale notice to follow after 30 days therefrom.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 05.06.2025 in W.P.No.12557/2025, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner and borrowers must pursue the alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, should be set aside and the writ petition allowed.

Court's answer

In view of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant seeking withdrawal, the writ appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant was enabled to withdraw the appeal in order to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), urging all the pleas available to it, both on facts and in law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Division Bench: V Kameswar Rao, Acting CJ and C M Joshi, J.), 23.06.2025, WA No. 955 of 2025 (GM-RES): Writ appeal under S.4, Karnataka High Court Act against the Single Judge's order dated 05.06.2025 in W.P.No.12557/2025. The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, citing United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, holding that where a statutory scheme and alternative remedy exist, particularly under the SARFAESI Act, the court should not interfere, and that the grievance could be raised under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Before the Division Bench, Senior Counsel Ashok Haranahalli sought withdrawal of the appeal so that the appellant trust could approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) urging all pleas on facts and law. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Bank's counsel stated symbolic possession of the mortgaged property was taken on 19.06.2025 and sale notice would issue after 30 days.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 955 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

GNANA SHALE EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST A REGISTERED TRUST REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.147/3 LAKSHMI NIVAS, SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI SRIDHAR NILAKANTA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

…APPELLANT

(BY SHI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SUCO SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK HEAD OFFICE AT SUCO BHAVANA MOKA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BALLARY-583 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER SUCO SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025

HC-KAR

HEAD OFFICE AT SUCO BHAVANA MOKA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BALLARY - 583 103.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 IN WRIT PETITION No.12557/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 05.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12557/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge, in paragraph Nos.3 to 6 has stated as under:

"3. The Apex Court in the case of United Bank of

India vs. Satyavati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 and reiterated by several judgments

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025

HC-KAR

thereafter has stated that once the statutory scheme is provided for and an alternative remedy exists, particularly, in the context of SARFAESI Act, the Court should not interfere.

4. It is noticed that the grievance sought to be made out is a matter that could be raised, if permissible, by recourse under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Taking note of the considered view of the Apex Court, no ground is made out to depart from the requirement of petitioner and borrowers to take recourse to the substantive remedy as are available to them as per law under the special statute.

6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and keeping open the contentions of the petitioner, the petition is disposed off with the above observations."

After some submissions, learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal to enable the appellant approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), urging all the pleas available to the appellant, both on facts and in law.

At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1

/ Bank states that symbolic possession of the mortgaged

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21677-DB WA No. 955 of 2025

HC-KAR

property has been taken on 19.06.2025. He also states that

the respondent / Bank has to issue notice for sale, after 30

days from 19.06.2025.

In view of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47