Dismissed¶46

S S R Constructions v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/18121/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI auction sale notice challenged by writ petition - dismissed; Article 226 alternative/first statutory remedy doctrine; DRT forum for secured-debt lis; appeal already filed against possession notice; Karnataka Bank Ltd. asset recovery; S S R Constructions; United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon relied on; Phoenix Case - writ against S.13(2)/13(4) SARFAESI notices abuse of process; interim orders discharged; Karnataka HC Bengaluru, GM-DRT, 17-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

An auction sale notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; the reliefs sought cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction, the Tribunal having been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. ¶35

S S R Constructions Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an auction sale notice dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure-J) issued by the bank is maintainable, or whether the litigant must pursue the statutory remedy before the Tribunal, particularly where the petitioners have already appealed against the possession notice.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

¶35

Key takeaways

Since the petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy (appeal against the possession notice), the writ petition challenging the auction notice cannot be entertained.ratio¶36
Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creating a right or liability prescribes the remedy or procedure, resort must first be had to that statutory remedy, and an Article 226 petition should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Jyoti M, J.), 17 June 2026 - W.P. No. 18121 of 2026 (GM-DRT): Petitioners (S S R Constructions and its two partners), under Article 226, sought certiorari to quash Karnataka Bank Ltd.'s auction sale notice dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure-J) for sale of the schedule property, and mandamus for an opportunity to settle dues and restructure the loan account. Held: reliefs of this nature cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction; per settled Supreme Court law, an auction sale notice cannot be challenged by a writ petition, the Tribunal being the forum established to adjudicate the lis. The petitioners had already availed the statutory remedy by appealing against the possession notice, hence the writ petition against the auction notice could not be entertained. Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; resort must first be had to the remedy the statute itself prescribes, and an Article 226 petition should not be entertained unless such remedies are ill-suited to an extraordinary situation. Relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (High Courts cautioned against bypassing DRT/SARFAESI remedies) and the Phoenix Case (writ filing against S.13(2)/13(4) SARFAESI measures an abuse of process; efficacious statutory appeal exists), the writ petition was dismissed; interim orders, if any, stood discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18121 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S S R CONSTRUCTIONS REP. BY IT'S PARTNERS MR. RAGHUNANDAN A.R., MRS. AKHILA T.S.,

¶10

MR. RAGHUNANDAN A.R., S/O. RAJAGURU A.P., AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶11

MRS. AKHILA T.S., D/O. SIDDE GOWDA T.S., AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶12

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

¶13

ALL ARE ADDRESSED AT NO.37, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560072.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. ARUN ASHOK GADAG, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

KARNATAKA BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS AGM AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.1ST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMA PRASADA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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.Arun Ashok Gadag, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.V.Shyama Prasada, counsel for respondent appeared in person.

¶27

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶28

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the auction sale notice dated 26.05.2026 as ANNEXURE-J issued by Respondent for the sale of the schedule property.

¶29

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to provide the Petitioners with an opportunity to settle the outstanding dues and restructure the loan account.

¶30

(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Counsel for the petitioners presented several contentions.

¶34

It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioners that as against possession notice, petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the appropriate forum.

¶35

The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the auction sale notice. The relief sought by the petitioner's cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a 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 .

¶36

The petitioners have already availed statutory remedy, hence, filing the writ petition challenging the auction notice cannot be entertained.

¶37

It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON

¶42

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.

¶43

The Apex Court in Phoenix Case's has held that filing of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. It is

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29522 WP No. 18121 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

also observed that whenever a notice is issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a litigant has statutory efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. 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

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

S S R Constructions v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S S R Constructions v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

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 H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda Vs Authorised Officer Canara Bank

Management of National Education Vs Smt.Chanamma

Sri H P Somashekar Vs the Management of Ifb Appliances Ltd.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs v Prakash Reddy

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri M Venkateshappa

Smt Sumalakshmi Vs Sri R a Mahesh