Dismissed¶40

Mr. Krishnan Rangachari v. Bank of Baroda

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026WP/18450/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), single judge (Jyoti M, J), 10 July 2026. Article 227 writ petition against interim order dated 22.05.2026 of DRT-II Bengaluru in O.A. No. 743/2024 (Bank of Baroda v. Krishnan Rangachari & others). Alternate remedy doctrine: appeal to DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act; petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedy; writ jurisdiction declined; petition dismissed; interim order discharged; interlocutory applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Any person aggrieved by an order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT; since an alternate remedy exists under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. ¶40

Mr. Krishnan Rangachari Vs Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34994 WP No. 18450 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.18450 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. KRISHNAN RANGACHARI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. LATE M.V.RANGACHARI R/O.NO.38-A, KARISHMA HILLS JAJI MARG, 80 FEET ROAD OFF KSIT COLLEGE KANAKAPURA ROAD, GUBBALALA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU SOUTH KARNATAKA-560 061

¶9

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

¶10

ALSO AT: NO.16 A G 1, NAVEENS KUMARAKOTTAM RADHA KRISHNAN SALAI, CHENNAI VALASARAVAKKAM, TIRUVALLUR TAMIL NADU-600 087 …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BANK OF BARODA

¶14

A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED BY AND UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1979 HAVING HEAD OFFICE SITUATED AT BARODA BHAVAN, R. C. DUTT ROAD ALKAPURI, VADODARA GUJARATH STATE AND INTER-ALIA BRANCH OFFICE

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34994 WP No. 18450 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AT GIRINAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU CITY REPTD.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶18

M/S. INDMET SL FORGE PARTS AND TESTING MACHINES PVT.LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.221, KARISHMA HILLS SUBRAMANYAPURA GUBBALALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 061 CORPORATE IDENTITY NO.U28999KA2021PTC143886 REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. KRISHNAN RANGACHARI

¶19

MRS. YASHIKA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O. HARISHRAJ S. R/O. NO.221, SURYALALI KARISHMA HILLS NEAR KSIT COLLEGE KANAKAPURA ROAD GUBBALALA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU SOUTH KARNATAKA-560 061

¶20

MR. HARISHRAJ S. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. SURYAPRAKASH R/O. NO.221, SURYALALI KARISHMA HILLS NEAR KSIT COLLEGE, KANAKAPURA ROAD GUBBALALA SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU SOUTH KARNATAKA-560 061

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI NAGARAJ N. DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:34994 WP No. 18450 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Sri.Varadaraj R. Havaldar, counsel for the petitioner appeared in person.

¶30

Sri.Nagaraj N.Damodar, counsel for respondent No.1 appeared through video conferencing.

¶31

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶32

(a) Call for records of Hon'ble DRT-II Bangalore in respect of O.A.No.743/2024, including impugned order dated 22.05.2026, (Annexure'A') for verifying the factual correctness & legality of such order.

¶33

(b) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the said impugned order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure-A) passed in O.A.No.743/2024 by Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Bengaluru and directing DRT - II to grant cross examination of witness of applicant Bank and evidence of defendants No.3 & 4 and

¶34

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:34994 WP No. 18450 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1

¶39

urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶40

Suffice it to note that the DRT vide order dated:22.05.2026 passed the order on interim application. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by any order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT. In the present case, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and has invoked the writ jurisdiction. As there is an alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRAT. Hence, this Court declines to exercise discretionary powers. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶41

Taking note of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court had permitted the petitioner to take out notice to the counsel who represents respondent Nos.2 to 4 before the Tribunal, however, this Court has disposed of the matter. There is no need to await for the appearance of counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:34994 WP No. 18450 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

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

¶46

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶47

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9