Dismissed¶¶40

Sri. Priyans Singh v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/16652/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act; possession notice dated 06.04.2026; Section 13(2); Section 13(4); Section 17 DRT appeal; Article 226 writ jurisdiction; Article 227; statutory remedy before writ; NPA to Standard Account reclassification; Home Loan A/c 41368634671 / 41373778106; State Bank of India RAPC Shankara Puram; writ petition dismissed; United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon; Phoenix Case; abuse of process; Karnataka High Court 2026; GM-DRT; Justice Jyoti M.

What did the court decide?

Persons served with SARFAESI Act notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) are not powerless: they may file objections and approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act; therefore the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. ¶¶31

Sri. Priyans Singh Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought - quashing of further proceedings pursuant to the SARFAESI possession notice dated 06.04.2026 and restoration of Home Loan A/c Nos. 41368634671/41373778106 from 'Non Performing Asset' to 'Standard Account' status - can be granted under writ jurisdiction, given the statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI Act (objections and appeal to the DRT under Section 17).

¶¶31

Court's answer

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

Echoing the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon, this Court hopes and trusts that High Courts will in future exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection rather than ignoring statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act.obiter¶¶36
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed; any interim order stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Justice Jyoti M, oral order dated 17.06.2026) dismissed W.P. No. 16652 of 2026 (GM-DRT) filed by Sri Priyans Singh against State Bank of India and another, seeking (i) certiorari to quash all further proceedings pursuant to the Bank's possession notice dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure-A) and (ii) restoration of Home Loan A/c Nos. 41368634671/41373778106 from 'Non Performing Asset' to 'Standard Account' status. Held: persons served with SARFAESI Act notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) are not powerless - they may file objections and appeal to the DRT under Section 17 - so the relief sought cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and resort must first be had to the prescribed statutory remedy. Relying on United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others and the Phoenix Case (writ petition under Article 226 in such matters being an abuse of the Court's process), the Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits, discharged any interim order and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29521 WP No. 16652 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 16652 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PRIYANS SINGH, S/O. LATE JAWAHAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT, FLAT NO.319, THIRD FLOOR, DS MAX SONATA NEST, MEDARAHALLI, NEAR CHIKKABANAVARA RAILWAY STATION, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560090.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MURALI D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAPC SHANKARA PURAM(64063) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER / AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.13/1, 3RD FLOOR, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, OPP. SRI RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶14

SMT. KAMALA DAS SINGH, W/O, PRIYANS SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT, E 166 - 237/2, AVALAHALLI ROAD, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU- 560026.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALINI VINAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29521 WP No. 16652 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Murali D., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Malini Vinay., counsel on behalf of Sri.C.Vinay Swamy., for caveator respondent No.1 appeared in person.

¶23

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶24

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, to quash all further proceedings pursuant to the possession notice dated 06.04.2026 issued by the respondent Bank vide Annexure-A.

¶25

(ii) Direct the respondent Bank to the classification of Home Loan A/c No.41368634671 / 41373778106 and restore the same from "Non Performing Asset" status to "Standard Account" without any delay, as the present classification is arbitrary, unwarranted and contrary to law.

¶26

(iii) Issue any other order or direction under the facts and circumstances of the present case,

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29521 WP No. 16652 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court would deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

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

¶31

A demand notice was issued subsequently, the authorized officer of the Bank issued possession notice on 06.04.2026. The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) are not powerless. They have a liberty of filing objections and also approach DRT under Section 17 of the Act, appealing to the Tribunal if needed. The relief sought by the petitioner's 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 .

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29521 WP No. 16652 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29521 WP No. 16652 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The Apex Court in Phoenix Case's has held that filing of

¶40

writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. It is also observed that whenever a notice is issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a litigant has statutory efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶41

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

¶42

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Priyans Singh v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Priyans Singh 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 H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda Vs Authorised Officer Canara Bank

Management of National Education Vs Smt.Chanamma

Sri H P Somashekar Vs the Management of Ifb Appliances Ltd.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs v Prakash Reddy

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri M Venkateshappa

Smt Sumalakshmi Vs Sri R a Mahesh