Dismissed¶43

P Vadiraj Acharya v. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/1017/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:34206; High Court of Karnataka (Jyoti M, J.), WP No. 1017 of 2023 (GM-DRT), decided 08-07-2026: dismissal of writ challenge under Articles 226/227 to Section 14 SARFAESI Act order dated 01.08.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.122/2022 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi); alternate remedy of appeal before DRT; Article 226 not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; reliance on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others; Union Bank of India, Hiriyadka; petitioners P. Vadiraj Acharya and Jayanthi; advocates Naveen Kumar M.G., K. Shashikanth Prasad, Divya Purandar.

What did the court decide?

None; the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits. ¶43

P Vadiraj Acharya Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 01.08.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.122/2022 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be entertained under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal before the DRT.

¶36

Court's answer

An order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT; the litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing it, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.

¶37

Key takeaways

A petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.ratio¶37
The Court declined to exercise power under writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition, observing that the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by P. Vadiraj Acharya and Mrs. Jayanthi seeking to set aside the order dated 01.08.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.122/2022 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi (Annexure-C), whereby the petition of the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Hiriyadka under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was allowed. Held: an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT, and the litigants are not remediless since the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creates a right or liability and prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing it, resort must be had to that statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226, and a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Placing reliance on the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others that High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act, the Court declined to exercise power under writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners free to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits; interim orders, if any, stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34206 WP No. 1017 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P.VADIRAJ ACHARYA, S/O. MR.SRINIVASA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶9

MRS. JAYANTHI, W/O. MR. P.VADIRAJ ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO.7-50, WAIPADI HOUSE, SANTHYAR, POST: PERDOOR-576124. UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR M.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K .SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, HIRIYADKA-576113. UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:34206 WP No. 1017 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.Naveen Kumar M.G., counsel on behalf of

¶25

Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad, for the petitioners and Smt.Divya Purandar, counsel for respondent appeared in person.

¶26

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶27

(a) To set aside the order dated 01.08.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.122/2022 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi (Annexure-C).

¶28

(b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstance of the petition, in the interest of justice.

¶29

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶30

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶31

Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.122/2022 and the Court vide order dated:01.08.2022 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:34206 WP No. 1017 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an

¶36

alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis .

¶37

It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.

¶38

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON

¶39

AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the Banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:34206 WP No. 1017 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits.

¶44

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶45

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

P Vadiraj Acharya v. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Vadiraj Acharya v. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

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

B Rajanna Vs Smt. Narayanamma

Sri T B Dhruva Kumar Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Sri Lakshmipathi Vs Union Bank of India

Sri. v. Ramanjinappa Vs the Division Controller

Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Ashwini Vs the Chairman and Managing Director