Dismissed¶53

Mr. Kandera K Suresh, v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026WP/21645/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ dismissal on alternate-remedy grounds: challenge to DRT order (S.A.No.286/2026) and SARFAESI sale certificate dated 25.03.2026 rejected because petitioner failed to exhaust statutory appeal to DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act; Articles 226/227 discretionary writ jurisdiction declined; Canara Bank respondents; Kodagu property (Sy.No.144/13 and 144/26, Biloor Village); natural justice argument raised by counsel but not adjudicated; single judge Jyoti M; no precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition, including the prayer to set aside the DRT order and quash the sale certificate, was refused on account of non-exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy; the petitioner was left free to approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. ¶53

Mr. Kandera K Suresh, Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the DRT order in S.A.No.286/2026 (non-consideration of Diary No.1951/2026 dated 15.06.2026) and the sale certificate dated 25.03.2026 could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy before the DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶47

Court's answer

Any person aggrieved by an order of the DRT must file an appeal before the DRAT; the law on this point is settled.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Since an alternate remedy existed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the DRAT and the petitioner had not exhausted that statutory remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power under Articles 226/227, leaving the petitioner free to approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.

¶47

Key takeaways

The writ petition was dismissed; consequently, any interim order granted stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India), GM-DRT category, High Court of Karnataka (Jyoti M, J.), decided 16 July 2026: Dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.286/2026 declining to consider Diary No.1951/2026 dated 15.06.2026, and sought quashing of the sale certificate dated 25.03.2026 (Document No.PON-1-07699/2025-26, Book-I, Sub Registrar, Kodagu (Ponnampete)) covering Sy.No.144/13 (5.40 acres) and Sy.No.144/26, Old Sy.No.144/9 (5.77.50 acres) at Biloor Village, Ponnampet Taluk, Kodagu. Holding (ratio): a person aggrieved by a DRT order must appeal to the DRAT; as an alternate remedy existed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner had not exhausted it, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. Interim order, if any, discharged; pending interlocutory applications disposed. No precedent cases were cited or relied upon.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36388 WP No. 21645 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010483332026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 21645 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. KANDERA K.SURESH, S/O. LATE KUSHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT BILUR VILLAGE AND POST, PONNAPPASARTHE POST, KODAGU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-571213.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UMESHA A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH, CANARA BANK BUILDING, HAMPANKATTA, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU-575001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶16

CANARA BANK, PONNAMPET BRANCH, KODAGU DISTRICT-571216. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,

¶17

MR. MALETIRA PONNAPPA AIYANNA, S/O. PONNAPPA,

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:36388

¶21

WP No. 21645 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010483332026

¶23

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. NO.5, MALETRA, 5TH CROSS, 5TH STAGE, NEAR BEML LAYOUT, CHRIST CHURCH, BENGALURU SOUTH, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶24

MRS. ANJANA KAIBILIRA SUBBVAIAH, W/O. M.P.AIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, MALETRA, 5TH CROSS, 5TH STAGE, NEAR BEML LAYOUT, CHRIST CHURCH, BENGALURU SOUTH, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Sri.Sanath Kumar Shetty K., counsel on behalf of Sri.Umesha A., for the petitioner and Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person.

¶31

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:36388 WP No. 21645 of 2026

¶35

CNR: KAHC010483332026

¶36

(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/s, direction/s, order/s by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.286/2026 in not considering the Diary No.1951/2026 dated 15.06.2026 vide Annexure-A and consequently thereupon by quashing the sale certificate dated 25.03.2026 Annexure-D vide document No.PON-1-07699/2025-26 of Book-I registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kodagu (Ponnampete) in respect of immovable properties bearing Sy.No.144/13, measuring 5.40 acres and Sy.No.144/26 (Old Sy.No.144/9) with an area of 5.77.50 acres, both the properties are situated at Biloor Village, Ponnampet Taluk, Kodagu;

¶37

(ii) To award the costs of the proceedings.

¶38

(iii) and to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the fact and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner urged several

¶40

contentions.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36388 WP No. 21645 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010483332026

¶44

Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the order of the DRT is opposed to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same may be quashed.

¶45

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with

¶46

care.

¶47

The petitioner has grievance about the order passed by the DRT and also sale certificate. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT. In the present case, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and has invoked the writ jurisdiction. As there is an alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRAT. This Court declines to exercise the discretionary power. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if so advised, and if the law permits.

¶48