Dismissed¶39

Sri Sugandha Babu v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026WP/15989/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 13(4) possession notice; writ petition against bank possession notice not maintainable; alternative statutory remedy before DRT; Article 226/227 circumvention of statutory procedure; lessee/licensee challenge; Leave and License Agreement; United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon; Karnataka High Court; GM-DRT; WP No. 15989 of 2024; dismissed; Justice Jyoti M; 18 June 2026; interim order discharged; interlocutory applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The relief sought by the petitioner (quashing of the possession notice) cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. ¶32

Sri Sugandha Babu Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Bank's possession notice dated 30/08/2021 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act (in respect of a portion of the schedule property covered by the petitioner's Leave and License Agreement) can be entertained and the relief of quashing granted under writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.

¶26

Court's answer

The relief sought by the petitioner (quashing of the possession notice) cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

A demand/possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; litigants are not remediless as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis.

¶32

Key takeaways

Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creates a right or liability and itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing it, resort must be had to that statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.ratio¶33
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¶36
High Courts are urged (echoing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon) to exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection, having regard to the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Jyoti M, J.), W.P. No. 15989 of 2024 (GM-DRT), decided 18-06-2026: Writ petition by a lessee/licensee of a portion of the scheduled property seeking quashing of the secured creditor bank's Possession Notice dated 30/08/2021 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act (Annexure A) DISMISSED. Held: (i) the relief of quashing a demand/possession notice cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction; (ii) a demand/possession notice cannot be challenged by writ petition, the Tribunal having been established specifically to adjudicate the lis, so litigants are not remediless; (iii) Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures - where a statute creates a right or liability and prescribes the remedy/procedure for enforcing it, resort must first be had to that statutory remedy; (iv) an Article 226 petition should not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to the demands of an extraordinary situation. Reliance placed on the Apex Court's observations in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others; High Courts urged to exercise discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. Consequence of dismissal: interim order, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15989 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUGANDHA BABU, S/O, LATE SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.198, ARALIMARADA PALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMKURU-572106. KARNATAKA (LESSEE/LICENSEE IN PORTION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY) …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE BANK OF INDIA DABASPETE BRANCH (040731) MARUTHI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, MADHUGIRI ROAD, DABASPET-562111. REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER REGISTER BANKING COMPANY UNDER BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949

¶13

M/S. SHANKAR MALL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, T.K.RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE G.B.KRISHNAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2-1-10-47B, 59331 PID NO. SY. NO. 4 AND 5

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

ASSESSMENT NO.3809/16, SIRA ROAD, TUMKURU-572105. REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. LAKSHMI K.VARADARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. M.S.HAREESH, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT)

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Srinivas Shetty, counsel on behalf of Sri.M.Mohan for

¶24

the petitioner, Smt.Lakshmi K.Varadaraj, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.S.Hareesh, counsel for proposed respondent appeared in person.

¶25

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶26

(i) To quash the Respondent Bank's impugned Possession Notice (ANNEXURE:A) dated 30/08/2021 issued u/s.13 (4) of SARFAESI Act in respect of a portion of the schedule property which is covered under the Petitioner's Leave and License Agreement in the interest of justice and equity;

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

(ii) To pass any such orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances stated above in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. The relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand/ possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis .

¶33

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

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29973 WP No. 15989 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.

¶37

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case

¶38

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 hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶40

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

¶41

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶42

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Sugandha Babu v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sugandha Babu v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.P.M.Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

C Nataraju Vs the Divisional Controller, Ksrtc

Sri. Priyans Singh Vs State Bank of India

Dr Rajesh T v Vs the Branch Manager

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Taurus Novelties Limited (in Liquidation)

M/S Nvcf Finance Private Limited Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Taurus Novalties Ltd., (in Liqn.)