Mr. Mohammed Suhail Pasha Vs M/S. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

M/S. PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS DWANA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,) HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.13, OLD NO.05, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560052. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:33262 WP No. 17470 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.Parameswarappa.M.V., counsel for the petitioners appeared in person.

¶25

Though the matter is listed today for

¶26

preliminary hearing, it is heard.

¶27

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶28

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the physical possession order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Principle Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara in Crl.Mis.No.118/2025 as per Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

(ii) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33262 WP No. 17470 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Counsel for the petitioners urged several

¶33

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶34

Suffice it to note that the M/s.Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd., had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.118/2025 and the Court vide order dated:06.09.2025 had allowed the

¶35

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 .

¶36

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

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33262 WP No. 17470 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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 .

¶43