Dismissed¶51

Sri H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda v. Authorised Officer Canara Bank

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/20309/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002; Section 13(4); possession notice 02.09.2022; writ of certiorari refused; Article 226 alternative remedy doctrine; Tribunal exclusive forum; Canara Bank Authorised Officer; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; GM-DRT; WP No. 20309 of 2022; Justice Jyoti M; Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon; Phoenix Case; abuse of process; writ dismissed; interim order discharged.

What did the court decide?

The relief sought by the petitioners (revocation/cancellation of the SARFAESI possession notice) cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. ¶38

Sri H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda Vs Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari can be issued revoking or cancelling the possession notice dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure-A) issued by Respondent No.1 on behalf of Respondent No.2. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The relief sought by the petitioners (revocation/cancellation of the SARFAESI possession notice) cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

As settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, a demand/possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition.

¶38

Key takeaways

Litigants challenging such notices are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis.ratio¶42
Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creates a right or liability and prescribes the remedy or procedure, resort must be had to that statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.ratio¶43
A petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Article 226 challenging possession notice dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure-A) issued by the Authorised Officer of Canara Bank (Respondent No.1) on behalf of Respondent No.2 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 — DISMISSED (Justice Jyoti M, 16.06.2026). Held: a demand/possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; litigants are not remediless as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and a writ petition should not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to an extraordinary situation. Reliance placed on Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and Others (Apex Court) and on the 'Phoenix Case' (writ against Section 13(4) notice held an abuse of process). Interim order, if any, stands discharged; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29210 WP No. 20309 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20309 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. H.S.SRINIVAS @ SRINIVAS S.GOWDA,

¶10

S/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, GAYATHRI H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶11

SRI. H.S.PADMARAJU, S/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.165/A, 11TH CROSS, GAYATHRI H.B.C.S LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

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

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH-II, 2ND FLOOR, CIRCLE OFFICE, SPENCERS TOWERS NO.86, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29210 WP No. 20309 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. CHYTHRA ARUN, W/O. ARUN KUMAR B., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. J-1006, 10TH FLOOR, 'J' BLOCK, BRIGADE GATEWAY, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU-560 055.

¶22

SRI. ARUN KUMAR B., FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT NO.J-1006, 10TH FLOOR, 'J' BLOCK, BRIGADE GATEWAY, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU-560 055.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. T.P.MUTTANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SUSHANTH , ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Sri.Rajeswara P.N., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.P.Muttanna, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Sushanth, counsel on behalf of Sri.Chintan Chinnappa, for respondent Nos.3 and 4 appeared in person.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:29210 WP No. 20309 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶33

(i) Issue writ of certiorari by revoking or canceling the possession notice dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.1 on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶34

(ii) Issue a writ or order or direction holding that the respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the schedule property.

¶35

(iii) Pass others as this Hon'ble court deems fit, including the award of cost/s, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶37

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

¶38

Suffice it to note that the authorized officer of the Bank had issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 02.09.2022. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. The relief sought by the petitioners 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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:29210 WP No. 20309 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAVATI TANDON AND OTHERS reported in

¶45

Civil Appeal No. arising out of SLP No.10145/2010 has observed as under:

¶46

27 . It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:29210 WP No. 20309 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

right of 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 greater caution, care and circumspection.

¶51

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(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 power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶52

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

¶53

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda v. Authorised Officer Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda v. Authorised Officer Canara 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

Sri Subhash Yadav Vs Central Silk Board

Shri Ramdayal Mahto Vs Central Silk Board

Karnataka State Handicraft Development Corporation Limited Vs Government of Karnataka

M/S Seethalakshmi Infra Developers Vs Smt Suma Kanchan

Canara Bank Vs M/.S Rajesh Exports Limited

Sumangali Seva Ashrama Vs State of Karnataka