Dismissed¶¶36

Smt.Bindhu Shivakumar v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026WP/14081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternate remedy; statutory appeal to DRAT under Section 18 SARFAESI must precede writ challenge to DRT orders; Section 14 SARFAESI orders (CJM-assisted measures) not amenable to writ jurisdiction — appeal before DRT is the remedy. DRT-II Bengaluru S.A.No.227/2024 order dated 24.04.2025; CJM Crl.Misc.No.8342/2023 order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure-D). Petitioner Smt. Bindhu Shivakumar v. Authorised Officer, The Bangalore City Co-operative Bank Ltd. WP No. 14081 of 2025 (GM-DRT), HC-KAR, NC: 2026:KHC:37350, decided 21 July 2026; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; on dismissal, interim order (if any) stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. ¶¶36

Smt.Bindhu Shivakumar Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; on dismissal, interim order (if any) stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition could proceed given that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal to the DRAT (under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act) against the DRT order. +1 more

¶¶34

Court's answer

A person aggrieved by any order of the DRT must file an appeal before the DRAT; since the petitioner had not exhausted this statutory remedy, an alternate remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act was available and the writ route was inappropriate.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

An order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction; the litigant's remedy is an appeal before the DRT, the Tribunal having been established specifically to adjudicate such disputes.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The Court declined to exercise its discretionary power under writ jurisdiction, observing that litigants are not remediless and that the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Jyoti M, Judge) — writ petition under Articles 226/227 (WP No. 14081 of 2025, GM-DRT) challenging (i) the order dated 24.04.2025 of DRT-II, Bengaluru disposing of S.A.No.227/2024 and (ii) consequentially the CJM order dated 03.10.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.8342/2023. Held: a person aggrieved by a DRT order must first appeal to the DRAT, the statutory remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which the petitioner had not exhausted; further, orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, the alternate remedy being an appeal before the DRT, the Tribunal being established specifically to adjudicate such disputes. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ power and dismissed the petition; any interim order stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:37350 WP No. 14081 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010324312025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 14081 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. BINDHU SHIVAKUMAR, NO.41, 3RD CROSS, AKSHAYANAGARA, YELENAHALLI CROSS, BEGUR, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560068.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. RENUKA DEVI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU-560018.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:37350 WP No. 14081 of 2025

¶21

CNR: KAHC010324312025

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Smt.Renuka Devi Patil, counsel on behalf of

¶24

Sri.M.A.Rajendra, for the petitioner appeared in person.

¶25

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶26

(a) To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal II at Bengaluru in S.A.No.227/2024 (Annexure-A) consequentially also set aside the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble CJM dt: 03.10.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.8342/2023 and all further measures, till disposal of the petition in the interest of justice and equity. The copy of the order passed by CJM (Annexure-D).

¶27

(b) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity including the award of costs of this writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioners urged several

¶29

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

¶30

The DRT vide order dated 24.04.2025 disposed of the appeal. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by the any order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT. In the

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37350 WP No. 14081 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010324312025

¶34

present case, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and has invoked the writ jurisdiction. As there is an alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRAT.

¶35

Furthermore, the 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 . This Court declines to exercise the discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits.

¶36

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶37

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

¶38

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶39

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt.Bindhu Shivakumar v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Bindhu Shivakumar v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Muni Vijaykumar Vs M/S Hiranandani Financial Services Private Limited

M/S Mandev Educational Trust Vs the Labour Officer

Mr Basavaraj Naik Vs Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Mr Girish Kumar K T Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Srinivasa Reddy Vs Assistant General Manager

Sri. Kalappa M N Vs Canara Bank