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

M/S. PRIYA PRODUCTS, NO.265/0, SY. NO.344, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, HEBBAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU-570016. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR H.S.KUMAR, S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

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

¶11

MS. KALAVATHI B., W/O. H.S.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.11, MIG HOUSE, KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI, MYSURU-570018. …PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. KENDAGANNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASHA V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MYSURU- N.S. ROAD BRANCH, NO.1252, N.S. ROAD, MYSURU-570001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28817 WP No. 17592 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Kendagannaswamy, counsel on behalf of Sri.Prakasha,

¶24

for the petitioners and Smt.Divya Purandar, counsel for

¶25

caveator / respondent appeared in person.

¶26

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶27

i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the Impugned Sale Notice dated 20.05.2026 issued by the Respondents fixing the e-auction of the schedule properties on 12.06.2026 (Annexure-A);

¶28

ii. Declare that the Impugned Sale Notice dated 20.05.2026 is completely contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and therefore void ab initio;

¶29

iii. Declare that the Respondent Bank cannot treat the Impugned Notice as a subsequent sale under Rule 9(1) in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28817 WP No. 17592 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

iv. Direct the Respondents to initiate fresh sale proceedings, if so advised, strictly in accordance with the 30-day notice mandate under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; and

¶33

v. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

¶34

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

¶35

The Union Bank had caused a demand notice on 01.12.2017 under Section 13(2) of the Act. The said notice was not complied within the stipulated period, the authorized officer has taken constructive possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w. Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, on 21.04.2018.

¶36

In the present writ petition, the petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the e-auction sale notice 20.05.2026. The relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:28817 WP No. 17592 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

decisions that a 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 .

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:28817 WP No. 17592 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶47

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

¶48

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶49

SS

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Priya Products v. the Authorized Officer Union 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

Lakshmi N Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Smt. T. Nagamma Vs Central Silk Board