Sri G D Arun Vs State Bank of India

SRI. G.D.ARUN, S/O. G.R.DHAVASKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.FR-F2, 'MSR NEEPA' APARTMENT, FOURTH FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 9TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560085.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA Location: HIGH HOME LOAN CENTER-1, COURT OF NO.13/1, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, KARNATAKA OPP. RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. (ESTABLISHED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955)

¶14

STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH (05173), NO.11/90, 3RD FLOOR, NEAR OPP. TRUST WELL HOSPITAL, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:31418 WP No. 18605 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

(ESTABLISHED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955)

¶19

SMT. SAMEENA KOUSER, D/O. BURHAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1339, ISLAM PUR MOHALLA, CHANNAPATNA DAIRA, RAMANAGARA-562160.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.N.YOGENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Sri.Harsha Kumar Gowda H.R., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.N.Yogendra, counsel for caveator / respondent No.1 appeared in person.

¶26

Though the matter is listed today for preliminary

¶27

hearing, it is heard.

¶28

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:31418 WP No. 18605 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(i) Issue writ of certiorari or order or direction to quash the possession notice dated 19.05.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 - Bank produced at Annexure-C.

¶33

(ii) Direct the respondent No.1 and 2 bank not to evict the petitioner from the schedule property.

¶34

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶36

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

¶37

The authorized officer of the Bank had issued Possession notice on 19.05.2026. The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) are not powerless. They have a liberty of filing objections and also approach DRT under Section 17 of the Act, appealing to the Tribunal if needed. 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 demand/ possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:31418 WP No. 18605 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis .

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:31418 WP No. 18605 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection.

¶49

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 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 . The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised in accordance with the law.

¶50

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

¶51

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶52

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri G D Arun v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G D Arun v. State 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

Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manish Kumar

B M Gurappa Vs B G Santosh Kumar

Mr. Madiraju Babu Vs Sir.M.Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

B S Indira Bai Vs the Managing Director

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of Karnataka

Dakshayanamma Vs the Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority