Disposed¶59

Sri. Ayub Khan v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025WP/479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: SARFAESI Act; Section 13(2); Section 13(4); Section 17 SARFAESI; alternative remedy; exhaustion of statutory remedy; Article 226; Article 227; writ petition disposed; relegation to DRT; Debt Recovery Tribunal; DRT Act; Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110; interim protection three weeks; no precipitative steps; Indian Bank Mysore; borrower mortgagor; Karnataka High Court; 2025; S Sunil Dutt Yadav J.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail the substantive remedy (under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before the DRT) with all contentions kept open; respondent-Bank directed not to take precipitative steps for three weeks; direction that time spent before the High Court be taken note of appropriately for limitation. ¶59

Sri. Ayub Khan Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the proceedings including the Notice under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act should be entertained when an effective substantive remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Insofar as the proceedings at Annexure-D, substantive remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; the petitioner's contentions, including fraud, are factually dense and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the observations of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, the petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings; all contentions of both sides are kept open.

¶50

Key takeaways

The respondent-Bank is directed not to take any precipitative steps for a period of three weeks from the date of the order; the interim protection is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive remedy and is not an order passed on the basis of adjudication on merits.ratio¶52
Upon lapse of the stipulated time the protection granted ceases to operate, and the authorities before whom the petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.ratio¶57
While considering limitation, if proceedings are instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI – Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by borrower-mortgagor challenging proceedings including Notices under S.13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act – Held: substantive remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; petitioner's contentions including fraud are factually dense and cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings – relying on Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, petition disposed of relegating petitioner to avail substantive remedy before the DRT with all contentions kept open – respondent-Bank directed not to take precipitative steps for three weeks; protection merely enabling, not a merits adjudication, and ceases on lapse – DRT authorities to consider the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations – time spent before the High Court to be taken note of appropriately for limitation.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. AYUB KHAN, BORROWER AND MORTGAGOR, AGED 46 YEARS, NO. 49, SBM COLONY, M P ROAD, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570 019.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SURESH.S.LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S INDIAN BANK, MYSORE BRANCH, 57/4, R S PLAZA, VINOBA ROAD, GANDHI SQUARE, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶14

THE ZONAL MANAGER, M/S INDIAN BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, 57/4, R S PLAZA, VINOBA ROAD, GANDHI SQUARE, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE GOVERNOR, RESERVE BANK OD INDIA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. MANIK.B.T, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE ABOVE WP, B) DIRECTING THE R1 AND 2 TO OPEN THE TECHNICAL BIDS UNDER ANNEXURE-A BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has called in question the validity of the proceedings including the Notice under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Several other contentions have been raised to the effect that the petitioner would have cleared the loan if the respondent – Bank had accepted the petitioner's property for lease.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents however

¶30

controverts each of the assertions of the petitioner regarding such an arrangement.

¶31

Nevertheless, it must be noticed that insofar as the proceedings at Annexure – D, substantive remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The contentions of the petitioner including fraud etc., are factually dense and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.

¶32

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:

¶33

"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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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 quasijudicial 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.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶43

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.

¶44

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."

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In light of the observations made by the Apex

¶49

Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.

¶50

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open.

¶51

In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet

¶52

the ends of justice by directing the respondent- bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of three weeks from today.

¶53

The interim protection granted under this order is only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive remedy and must not be considered to be an order passed on the basis of adjudication on merits. Upon the lapse of the time stipulated, the protection granted would cease to operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:25588 WP No. 479 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶58

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.

¶59

Accordingly, petition is disposed off .

¶60

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶61

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri. Ayub Khan v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ayub Khan v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shree Doddamma Devi Earth Works Vs the Authorized Office and Manager Union Bank of India

Smt. R. Lakshmi Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Ramesh Kumar Y Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Nithin a Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

N.S. Venkatesh Vs Union of India

M/S Sgr Minerals and Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India