Dismissed¶45

Sri H C Rudresh v. M/S Shriram Finance Limited

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/15830/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 14 order and possession notice — challenge under Articles 226/227 — maintainability — alternate remedy of appeal before DRT — demand/possession notice not amenable to writ challenge per Apex Court decisions — borrowers vs Shriram Finance Ltd, Shivamogga — arrears of Rs.4,65,699/- sought to be paid for loan regularisation — WP No. 15830 of 2026 (GM-DRT), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru — dismissed by Jyoti M, J. on 10.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶39

Sri H C Rudresh Vs M/S Shriram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27759 WP No. 15830 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 15830 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. H.C.RUDRESH, S/O. SRI.CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. CHANNABASAPPA, S/O. SRI. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA H., S/O. SRI. HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BIDARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, BULLAPURA POST, HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶14

(BY SRI. H.S.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S. SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, SHIVAMOGGA BRACH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SRI. YOGESH M.R., S/O. LATE SRI. M.K.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, M/S SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, KALASAVALLI COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27759 WP No. 15830 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

O.P.ROAD, NEAR KRISHNA CAFE HOTEL, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. VIJAY S., ADVOCATE)

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri.H.S.Prashanth, counsel for the petitioners and

¶27

Sri.Vijay S., counsel for the respondent appeared in person.

¶28

Though the matter is listed today for orders it is

¶29

heard.

¶30

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶31

(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 278/2025, produced herewith vide AnnexureA;

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:27759 WP No. 15830 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the possession notice dated 10/05/2026 issued by the Respondent, vide Annexure-B,

¶36

(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent to accept the arrears amount of Rs.4,65,699/- from the Petitioners and consequently regularize the loan account; and

¶37

(d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶39

Suffice it to note that the first respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.278/2025 and the Court vide order dated:30.04.2026 had allowed the petition. 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 law is settled by the Apex Court

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:27759 WP No. 15830 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

in catena of decisions that demand/ possession notice cannot

¶44

be questioned by filing a writ petition. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶45

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

¶46

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri H C Rudresh v. M/S Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H C Rudresh v. M/S Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ravish K M Vs the Management

Vijayavani Shetty Vs Union Bank of India

Vanishree Vs Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Smt.Gangalakshmamma Vs Sri.T.Nagappaiah Navada

Muthanna M C Vs Canara Bank

Sri M Mahesh Vs the Divisional Controller