Dismissed¶¶42

Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Constitution of India, Article 226 – SARFAESI Act, 2002, S.14

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/18207/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI S.14 order; Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 Tumakuru; alternate remedy appeal to DRT; Article 226 writ not to circumvent statutory procedure; Equitas Small Finance Bank; secured creditor possession; United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon; GM-DRT; writ petition dismissed; Karnataka High Court single judge (Jyoti M), 08-07-2026.

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 since the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. ¶¶33

Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lies to quash an order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act restraining interference with the petitioners' possession of the schedule property, when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the DRT is available.

¶¶27

Court's answer

¶¶33

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 the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Relying on the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others that High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercise Article 226 jurisdiction with serious adverse impact on Banks' right to recover dues, the Court declined to exercise power under writ jurisdiction, hoping High Courts will act with caution, care and circumspection.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 226 — SARFAESI Act, 2002, S.14 — Writ petition (GM-DRT) seeking mandamus to quash Annexure-A order dated 26.03.2025 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 allowing the Bank's S.14 application — Held: an order passed under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction as an alternate remedy of appeal before the DRT exists; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and resort must be had to the prescribed statutory remedy unless it is ill-suited to an extraordinary situation; relying on the Apex Court's caution in United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others regarding High Courts ignoring DRT/SARFAESI remedies, writ jurisdiction declined — Writ petition dismissed; interim order, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18207 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, S/O. SYED KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. SHANAZ, W/O. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 804, 10TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY, MARALURU DINNE, TUMAKURU -572104.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S.M.DAYANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NO.5, JBA TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, BESIDED VINAYAKA HOSPITAL, SHIVAKUMAR SWAMIJI CIRCLE, TUMAKURU-572102.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Sri.S.M.Dayanand Patil., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.C.Avinash., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶26

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶27

(a) Issue a Writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus quash/ set aside the Annexure-A order dated:26.03.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 under the provisions of the Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by restraining the respondent from interfere in any manner with petitioner peaceful occupation, possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

¶28

(b) Any other order/s direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order has to the cost of this petition in the interest of justice.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

Suffice it to note that the respondent Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.220/2024 and the Court vide order dated:26.03.2025 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 .

¶34

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

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34209 WP No. 18207 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet

¶38

the demands of an extraordinary situation.

¶39

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case

¶40

of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON

¶41

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. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶42

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

¶43

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶44

MRP

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha v. Equitas Small Finance 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

B Rajanna Vs Smt. Narayanamma

Sri T B Dhruva Kumar Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Sri Lakshmipathi Vs Union Bank of India

Sri. v. Ramanjinappa Vs the Division Controller

Ashwini Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

The Divisional Controller Bengaluru Mahanagara Transport Corporation Vs Sri Ashok N