Dismissed¶56

Sri. Jayarama. H v. Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026WP/17237/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC writ petition dismissed - SARFAESI Section 14 order (Crl.Misc.No.81/2026, order dt. 04.02.2026, CJM Bengaluru Rural) not amenable to writ challenge; alternate remedy of appeal before DRT; Section 17 SARFAESI appeal for demand/possession and E-auction sale notices; Article 226 not to circumvent statutory remedies; reliance on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (Apex Court); Jana Small Finance Bank Limited; sale certificate dated 18.04.2026; auction purchaser; OTS scheme request; GM-DRT; WP No. 17237 of 2026; NC: 2026:KHC:32857.

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. ¶44

Sri. Jayarama. H Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.81/2026, the E-auction sale notice and the sale certificate can be questioned under writ jurisdiction when an alternate remedy of appeal before the DRT is available. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

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.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Persons served with SARFAESI Act notices are not powerless: they may file objections and approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act; demand/possession notices and E-auction sale notices cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition, as the Tribunal was established specifically to adjudicate the lis.

¶45

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¶48
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¶48
Expressing hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.17237 of 2026 (GM-DRT), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Jyoti M, J.; order dated 02.07.2026). The petitioners sought to quash (i) the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural in Crl.Misc.No.81/2026 allowing the authorised officer's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, (ii) the E-auction notice and sale notice issued by Jana Small Finance Bank Limited, and (iii) the sale certificate dated 18.04.2026 issued in favour of the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser; they also sought consideration under an OTS scheme and return of physical possession and original documents. Held, dismissing the writ petition: an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction since an appeal lies before the DRT; demand/possession notices and E-auction sale notices cannot be challenged by writ petition, as affected persons may file objections and approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and where a statute prescribes the remedy, resort must be had to it before invoking Article 226, relying on the Apex Court's observations in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others. The court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction; interim orders, if any, stand discharged and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.17237 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. JAYARAMA H., S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. RADHA, W/O. SRI JAYARAMA H., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.81, HONAGANAHATTI, KADUBUGERE POST, BENGALURU-562 130.

¶12

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

¶13

ALSO AT SITE NOS.1 AND 2, GANGONDANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 162. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAJI N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

AUTHORISED OFFICER, JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANALAKSHMI FINANCE SERVICES LTD.,), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO.10/1, 11/2 AND 12/2B

¶17

OFF DOMLUR, KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NEXT TO EGL BUSINESS PARK, CHALLAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560 071.

¶21

SMT. VIMALA RAMACHANDRAREDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, E402, UKN ESPERANZA, THUBARAHALLI EXTENDED ROAD, THUBARAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶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 PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Senior counsel on behalf of

¶27

Sri.Balaji N., for the petitioners appeared in person.

¶28

Though the matter is listed today for

¶29

preliminary hearing, it is heard.

¶30

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

(a) Quash the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural in Crl. Misc., 81/2026, Annexure-G, E- auction notice, Sale notice issued by 1^st respondent Bank and also quash the sale certificate dated 18.04.2026 issued by the 1^st respondent in favour of 2^nd respondent / auction purchaser Annexure-A.

¶35

(b) Seek to consider the case of the petitioners to OTS scheme, return back the physical possession and original documents to the petitioners from the 1^st respondent bank.

¶36

(c) Grant any such other order or relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners by allowing this writ petition, in the ends of justice and equity.

¶37

4. Counsel for the petitioners urged several

¶38

contentions.

¶39

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Suffice it to note that the authorized officer of

¶44

the Bank, had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.81/2026 and the Court vide order dated:04.02.2026 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.

¶45

The Bank had issued E-auction sale notice. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the E- auction sale notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices 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 Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand/ possession notices and E-auction sale 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 .

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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.

¶49

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:32857 WP No. 17237 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I

¶55

decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction.

¶56