Smt. Veena S Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. Veena S Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crl. Misc. No.8396/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the DRT is available.

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.

Ratio / Principle

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 it, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.

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¶¶35
Relying on the observation of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others that High Courts should exercise discretion in such matters with caution, care and circumspection, the Court declined to exercise power under writ jurisdiction.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution — challenge to order dated 19.12.2024 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crl. Misc. No.8396/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, allowing the Authorized Officer of Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. to take possession, with a further prayer for restoration of physical possession of the schedule property — Held: an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction since an alternate remedy of appeal before the DRT is available and the Tribunal is established specifically to adjudicate the lis; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and a statutory remedy must be exhausted unless ill-suited to an extraordinary situation; relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others (Apex Court), the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction — Writ petition dismissed; interim order, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29967 WP No. 16040 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 16040 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VEENA S., W/O. SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR A., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FLAT NO. 212, A BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, MAJESTIC RESIDENCY, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029.

SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR A., S/O. LATE ASHWATHNARAYANA K., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, FLAT NO. 212, A BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, MAJESTIC RESIDENCY, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029.

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

(BY SRI. SARAVANAN G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

…PETITIONERS

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD., HEAD OFFICE: NO.125, 1ST FLOOR, KAVI LAKSHMEESHA DIAGONAL ROAD, V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004. (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997)

…RESPONDENT

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29967 WP No. 16040 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Saravanan G., counsel for the petitionera appeared in person and Sri.Madhusoodhana P.N., counsel for the respondent appeared through video conferencing.

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

a. Issue a Writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction by quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crl. Misc. No.8396/2024 vide ANNEXURE-C in sofar as petitioner is concern, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002), as being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and consequently, direct the 1st Respondent to restore forthwith the physical possession of the Schedule property, to the Petitioners;

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29967 WP No. 16040 of 2026

HC-KAR

b. Pass such further or other orders, writs, and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity

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

Suffice it to note that the first respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.8396/2024 and the Court vide order dated:19.12.2024 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 litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis .

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

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29967 WP No. 16040 of 2026

HC-KAR

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.

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case

of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON

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. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29967 WP No. 16040 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

SS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4