Dismissed¶36

M/S. Pratham Agro Center v. the Manager

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WP/17608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 17 alternate efficacious remedy; writ petition maintainability; Article 226 Article 227; possession notice Sec 13(4) dated 12.12.2023; vacating notice dated 15.06.2024; Canara Bank Bylakuppe Branch; Rikhab Chand Jain vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No.6719/2012; Karnataka High Court GM-DRT; dismissal with liberty to approach appropriate forum; 30-day restraint on coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice before the appropriate forum; respondent directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of 30 days; pending I.A.s disposed of accordingly. ¶36

M/S. Pratham Agro Center Vs the Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6313 WP No. 17608 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.17608 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. PRATHAM AGRO CENTER REP. BY ITS PROPRIETARY CONCERN, SRI YASHWANTH KUMAR, S/O. SHIVANNA .H, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.14A, ALANAJALLI NAYAKARAKERI, ALANAHALLI POST, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 107. …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI R. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, BYLAKUPPE BRANCH, B.M. ROAD, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE-571 104. …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VINAY BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING NOTICES VACATING NOTICE DATED 15.06.2024 FOR VACATING THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 12.12.2023 (SEC.13(4)) VIDE REF:NO.11708/BYLAKUPPE/13(4)/974257 ANNEXURE-D.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:6313 WP No. 17608 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the

¶24

following reliefs:

¶25

a)Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the following notices: i) Vacating notice dated 15.06.2024 for vacating the mortgaged property vide Annexure-A. ii) Consequently possession notice dated 12.12.2023 (Sec 13(4) vide Ref:No.11708/BylakUPPE/13(4)/974257 vide Annexure-D.

¶26

b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The petitioner filed this petition challenging the possession notice dated 12.12.2023 issued by

¶28

respondent vide Annexure-D. The petitioner has an equal efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity ‘SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner, without exhausting an efficacious remedy, filed this writ petition. In view of the proposition of law laid down by

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:6313 WP No. 17608 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain

¶33

vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.6719/2012 disposed of on 12.11.2025, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

¶34