Dismissed¶¶42

Sri Praveen Kumar D v. the Authorised Officer Icici Bank

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026WP/20223/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Section 13(2) demand notice; Section 17 appeal to DRT; writ petition maintainability; Article 226 and Article 227, Constitution of India; abuse of process of court; certiorari; mandamus; insurance claim disbursement towards loan outstanding; ICICI Bank Authorised Officer; ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company; Policy No. C5838519; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; GM-DRT; WP No. 20223 of 2026; Justice Jyoti M; decision dated 21-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

A person aggrieved by a SARFAESI demand notice is not remediless: they may file objections and appeal to the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; as settled by the Apex Court, a demand notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. ¶¶36

Sri Praveen Kumar D Vs the Authorised Officer Icici… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 11.05.2026 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Annexure-A) can be quashed by a writ petition under Articles 226/227. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since the litigant has a statutory, efficacious remedy of appeal under the SARFAESI Act (and the Apex Court has cautioned High Courts not to entertain such writ petitions, treating them as an abuse of the process of the court), this court declines to exercise its discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction and holds the petition devoid of merits.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

Upon dismissal, any interim order granted stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.ratio¶¶42
The petitioners remain free to approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 (GM-DRT) by a father and his minor daughter (represented by the father) challenging the demand notice dated 11.05.2026 issued by the Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Annexure-A), and seeking mandamus to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to disburse the insurance claim amount towards the loan outstanding in terms of policy bearing No.C5838519 (Annexure-D). HELD: A SARFAESI demand notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; aggrieved persons are not remediless — they may file objections and appeal to the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Relying on the Apex Court's 'Phoenix' decision, under which a writ petition under Article 226 against a notice under Sections 13(2)/13(4) SARFAESI is an abuse of the process of the court and High Courts are cautioned not to entertain such writ petitions, the court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits. Interim orders, if any, stand discharged and pending interlocutory applications stand disposed; the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37353 WP No. 20223 of 2026

¶3

CNR: KAHC010444702026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20223 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR D., S/O. DHANASEKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, MADHAVELI STREET, THANDURAI, PATTABIRAM, TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU-600072.

¶10

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

¶11

KUM. SARAH JUNE P., D/O. PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY FATHER PRAVEEN KUMAR D., S/O. DHANASEKAR., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT., NO. 11, MADHAVELI STREET, THANDURAI, PATTABIRAM, TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU-600072.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. H.JAYANTHA POOJARY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ICICI BANK, NO.4/10, MYTHREE TOWER, BOMMANAHALLI, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068.

¶16

THE MANAGER ICICI PRUDENTIAL

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:37353 WP No. 20223 of 2026

¶20

CNR: KAHC010444702026

¶21

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.99, 5TH CROSS, NEAR APOLLO CRADLE HOSPITAL, KHB COLONY, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.H.Jayanth Poojary, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar, counsel for the respondents appeared in person.

¶28

2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶29

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice dated 11.05.2026 issued by the 1^st respondent under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as per AnnexureA.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37353 WP No. 20223 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010444702026

¶33

(ii) Issue writ in the nature of the mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to disburse the insurance claim amount towards the loan outstanding amount in terms of the policy bearing No.C5838519 vide Annexure-D.

¶34

(iii) Grant such other further relief as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶35

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

¶36

The authorized officer of the Bank had issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 11.05.2026. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the demand notice. Any person/s aggrieved by issuance of notices under SARFAESI Act/ Rules 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 Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a demand 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 .

¶37

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:37353 WP No. 20223 of 2026

¶40

CNR: KAHC010444702026

¶41

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. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.

¶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

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri Praveen Kumar D v. the Authorised Officer Icici Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen Kumar D v. the Authorised Officer Icici Bank

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

Mr Muni Vijaykumar Vs M/S Hiranandani Financial Services Private Limited

M/S Mandev Educational Trust Vs the Labour Officer

Mr Basavaraj Naik Vs Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Mr Girish Kumar K T Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Srinivasa Reddy Vs Assistant General Manager

Sri. Kalappa M N Vs Canara Bank