Mr Chandrakanth H Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr Chandrakanth H Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI framework (Rule 8(6) notice dated 05.06.2026) can be challenged by way of a writ petition, or whether the petitioner must avail the statutory remedies of filing objections and approaching the DRT under Section 17 of the Act.

Ratio / Principle

Persons served with SARFAESI Act notices are not powerless: they may file objections and approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act, and a sale notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; the Tribunal was established specifically to adjudicate such lis.

Key takeaways

Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creates a right or liability and itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing it, resort must be had to that statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.ratio¶33
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¶33
Admonition echoing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon: High Courts ignoring statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act pass orders with serious adverse impact on banks' right to recover dues; the court hopes and trusts High Courts will exercise discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI — Challenge to Rule 8(6) sale notice dated 05.06.2026 by writ petition under Article 227 — Held, a sale notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; a person served with SARFAESI notices may file objections and approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act — Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute prescribes the remedy, resort must be had to it first, and Article 226 petitions should not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to an extraordinary situation — Reliance on United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others — Writ petition rejected; interim order, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20539 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

MR. CHANDRAKANTH H., S/O. NARAYAN KANAKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.3-22, HARAPALLA HOME, NELYADI POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574229.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G.K.SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R THE AUTHORISED OFFICER Location: HIGH COURT OF VISHWAKARMA SAHAKARA BANK LTD., KARNATAKA CARSTREET, MANGALURU-575001.

…RESPONDENT

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

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

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Sri.G.K.Shiva Prakash, counsel for the petitioner

appeared in person.

Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, it is heard:

The writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Issue an orders /direction in the name of the writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned notice dated 05.06.2026 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-C.

(b) To direct the respondent bank to consider one time settlement (OTS) requests of the petitioner.

(c) To pass such other order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

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

The authorized officer had issued sale notice under

Rule 8(6) on 05.06.2026. The petitioner grievance is about the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026

HC-KAR

issuance of the sale notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices 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 .

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.

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case

of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33920 WP No. 20539 of 2026

HC-KAR

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 rejected .

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

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21