Dismissed¶43

Sri Naresh Vittal Rao Pise v. Hdfc Bank

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026WP/20438/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, WP No. 20438 of 2026 (GM-DRT), Justice Jyoti M, 10 July 2026. Keywords: SARFAESI Act 2002; Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002; Rule 8(6); Rule 9(1); sale notice; Authorized Officer; HDFC Bank; Section 17 SARFAESI; DRT appeal; alternative/exhaustion of statutory remedy; Article 226; Article 226 and 227; writ of certiorari; preliminary hearing; United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others; writ petition dismissed; interim order discharged. Subject: borrower's writ challenge to bank's e-auction/sale notice routed instead to DRT; Article 226 not to bypass statutory tribunal remedy.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was found devoid of merits and dismissed, and any interim order stood discharged with pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶43

Sri Naresh Vittal Rao Pise Vs Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was found devoid of merits and dismissed, and any interim order stood discharged with pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies to challenge a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI framework, when the aggrieved person may file objections and appeal to the DRT under Section 17 of the Act. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

A sale notice issued under the SARFAESI framework cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; aggrieved persons are not remediless — they may file objections and approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act, the Tribunal having been established specifically to adjudicate such lis.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creates a right or liability and prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing it, recourse must first be had to that statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.

¶36

Key takeaways

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¶40
The Court expressed the hope and trust that in future High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters (where DRT/SARFAESI statutory remedies are available) with great caution, care and circumspection.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI sale notice — challenge by writ petition impermissible; statutory remedy under Section 17 (DRT appeal) must be availed. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the sale notice dated 25.05.2026 (published in Indian Express on 02.06.2026, Annexure-A) issued by the Authorized Officer under Rule 8(6) read with Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Act, alleging illegality and violation of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Holding that aggrieved persons under SARFAESI notices are not powerless — they may file objections and appeal to the DRT under Section 17 — and that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and that an Article 226 petition ought not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to an extraordinary situation (relying on United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others), the Court dismissed the writ petition; interim order, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34993 WP No. 20438 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.20438 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NARESH VITTAL RAO PISE S/O. SRI VITTAL RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.F-107, 2^ND FLOOR, NITYA SADAN OPP. WHITE DREAM MANOR RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-94

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

HDFC BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER GROUND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN MUNICIPAL NO.3/1 WARD NO.77 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 IFSC CODE-HDFC0009764

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:34993 WP No. 20438 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Mithun G.A., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Francis Xavier, counsel for the respondent appeared in person.

¶23

Though the matter is listed today for preliminary

¶24

hearing, it is heard.

¶25

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶26

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the sale notice dated 25.05.2026 published in Indian Express News Paper dated 02.06.2026 vide Annexure-A in respect of the Schedule property, together with all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002;

¶27

(ii) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner urged several

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:34993 WP No. 20438 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The sale notice published in Indian Express

¶34

Newspaper at Annexure-A is called into question on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶35

The authorized officer had issued sale notice under Rule 8(6) read with Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Act on 25.05.2026. The petitioner grievance is about the issuance of the sale notice. Any person/s who is aggrieved by the notices issued under SARFAESI Act 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 sale 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 .

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:34993 WP No. 20438 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶43

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

¶44

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶45

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri Naresh Vittal Rao Pise v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naresh Vittal Rao Pise v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parashurama C H Vs the Chairman

Smt.Kalpana Jitendra Doshi Vs Jc Flowers Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Sri J Nagaraj Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd. (in Liqdn)

The Executive Engineer Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Ltd. Vs Sri Kenchappa

Mr. Krishnan Rangachari Vs Bank of Baroda

Regaliaa Buildtech and Services Private Limited Vs LIC Housing Finance Limited