Dismissed¶45

Mr Basavaraj Naik v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WP/21677/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 14 order challenged in writ jurisdiction; alternate remedy appeal before DRT; Article 226 not to circumvent statutory procedures; Article 226 petition not entertained where statutory remedies adequate; reliance on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (Apex Court); Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru Rural District; Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 order dated 06.05.2026; Bajaj Finance Ltd.; borrower/co-borrower petitioners; writ petition dismissed; Karnataka High Court GM-DRT 2026.

What did the court decide?

The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT; the litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. ¶37

Mr Basavaraj Naik Vs Bajaj Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be entertained under Article 226, notwithstanding the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the DRT.

¶37

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

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 it, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226.

¶38

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¶42
Declining to exercise discretionary power, the Court held that the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum (appeal before the DRT) if so advised and if the law permits.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT), High Court of Karnataka (Jyoti M, J.), decided 20 July 2026: Petitioners, a borrower and co-borrower, sought quashing of the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 allowing Bajaj Finance Ltd.'s application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Held: an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as an alternate remedy of appeal lies before the DRT; Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and resort must first be had to the prescribed statutory remedy (relying on the Apex Court's observations in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others). Discretionary power declined; writ petition dismissed; interim order, if any, discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37023 WP No. 21677 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010478382026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 21677 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. BASAVARAJ NAIK, (BORROWER) S/O. RAPALA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.30/65, SAPTAGIRI SADANA, 1ST FLOOR, 16TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶11

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

¶12

MRS. PANKAJA M.S., W/O. BASAVARAJA NAIK, (CO-BORROWER), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.30/65, SAPTAGIRI SADANA, 1ST FLOOR, 16TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. A.S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT MUMBAI PUNE ROAD, AKURDI, PUNE-411 035, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA.

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:37023 WP No. 21677 of 2026

¶20

CNR: KAHC010478382026

¶21

CORPORATE OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, BAJAJ FINSERC, OFF PUNE-AHEMEDNAGAR ROAD, VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE-411014. MAHARASHTRA, INDIA.

¶22

HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE TOWERS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 025, INDIA. REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY AREA LEGAL MANAGER.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶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.A.S.Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioners appeared in

¶28

person.

¶29

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶30

(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 Annexure - A and

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37023 WP No. 21677 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010478382026

¶34

(b) Grant any other order, writ and relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary under the facts of this case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

Counsel for the petitioners urged several

¶36

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

¶37

Suffice it to note that the respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 and the Court vide order dated:06.05.2026 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis .

¶38

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

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37023 WP No. 21677 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CNR: KAHC010478382026

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary power. The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:37023 WP No. 21677 of 2026

¶49

CNR: KAHC010478382026

¶50

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order

¶51