Dismissed¶¶57

Lakshmi N v. the Reserve Bank of India

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026WP/17546/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Jyoti M, 15-06-2026), WP No. 17546 of 2026 (GM-DRT): dismissal of writ challenge to order dated 03.03.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.8287/2025 (Vth Addl. CJM, Bangalore) allowing Section 14 SARFAESI Act application of Nehrunagar Co-Operative Society Bank Ltd.; alternate remedy before DRT; Article 226/227 circumvention of statutory procedure; United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon relied on; Harshad Govardhan Sondagar 2014 6 SCC 1 distinguished; no relief to occupant petitioners against bank/auction purchaser interference.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶¶46

Lakshmi N Vs the Reserve Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.8287/2025 by the Vth Addl. CJM, Bangalore under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be questioned under writ jurisdiction, given the alternate remedy of an appeal before the DRT. +1 more

¶¶46

Court's answer

¶¶46

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, and a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

Invoking the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon that High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act, the Court declines to exercise power under writ jurisdiction.ratio¶¶51
On the precedent cited by counsel (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar, 2014 6 SCC 1), the Court holds that the law is not in doubt; each decision turns on its facts, and the present case was tested in light of that decision.ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 seeking quashing of the order dated 03.03.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.8287/2025 passed by the Vth Addl. CJM, Bangalore (Annexure A), whereby the Section 14 SARFAESI Act petition of the Nehrunagar Co-Operative Society Bank Ltd. was allowed, together with prayers for mandamus protection of the petitioners' possession and related directions. Held: an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as an alternate remedy of appeal lies before the DRT; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and resort must first be had to the prescribed statutory remedy. Invoking the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon on High Courts ignoring DRT/SARFAESI remedies, the Judge declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. Counsel's reliance on Harshad Govardhan Sondagar, 2014 6 SCC 1 was answered that the law is not in doubt and each decision turns on its facts. Writ petition dismissed; interim orders (if any) discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28954 WP No. 17546 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 17546 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LAKSHMI N., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. SURESH BABU M., R/AT NO.15/3 , UPPARHALLI CROSS, GRAMADEVTHA ROAD, LALBAGH, BENGALURU-560004.

¶10

M.GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O. MARIYACHARI, R/AT NO.15/3, UPPARHALLI CROSS, GRAMADEVTHA ROAD, LALBAGH, BENGALURU-560004.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

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

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NO.6 SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶16

THE NEHRUNAGAR

¶17

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK LTD., NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶18

BY ITS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28954 WP No. 17546 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. ANITHA, W/O. SRI. VEDIAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, M.S. BUILDING, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU-560002.

¶22

SRI. KRISHNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. ANNAYYA CHARI, R/AT NO.118, 17TH CROSS, VIBHUTIPURA MAIN ROAD, RAMESH NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560037.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.Vardhaman V.Gunjal, counsel for the petitioners has

¶28

appeared in person.

¶29

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶30

(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash ANNEXURE A the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Crl. Misc No.8287/2025 passed by the Vth Addl. CJM, Bangalore and the same is not binding on the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:28954 WP No. 17546 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioners, the same being passed without notice to the petitioners who are in lawful occupation of the schedule premises.

¶35

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and its officers, agents, assignees, auction purchasers or any person claiming through them not to interfere with the Petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property except by due process of law.

¶36

(c) Declare that the order dated 03.03.2026 in Crl. Misc. No.8287/2025 cannot be executed against the Petitioners without adjudication of their independent rights before a competent forum.

¶37

(d) Direct Respondent No.2 Bank to furnish to the Petitioners copies of all notices, possession notices, applications, affidavits, valuation reports, auction proceedings, orders and documents pertaining to the Schedule Property.

¶38

(e) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent bank to hold and enquiry as to whether the 3RD Respondent has been through 2nd respondent and want to circumvent the due process of law to seek possession of the Petition Scheule property from the Petitioners;

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28954 WP No. 17546 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

(f) Grant any such Writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court might deem fit in the facts and circumstances of eth case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶42

Counsel for the petitioners urged several

¶43

contentions and placed reliance on the following decision.

¶44

HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR V/S. INTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2014 6 SCC 1.

¶45

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶46

Suffice it to note that the Nehrunagar Co-Operative Society Bank Ltd, had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.8287/2025 and the Court vide order dated:03.03.2026 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. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis .

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:28954 WP No. 17546 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:28954 WP No. 17546 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Counsel for the petitioners has cited decision referred to

¶56

supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decision.

¶57

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶58

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

¶59

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Lakshmi N v. the Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi N v. the Reserve 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 Ayub Ali Vs the Canara Bank

Mrs. Giridhar Rao Anitha Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Hanumanthegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sanjay. K Vs Bank of Maharashtra

M/S Priya Products Vs the Authorized Officer Union Bank of India.

Smt. T. Nagamma Vs Central Silk Board