Dismissed¶46

Sri Lalit Jain v. Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WP/21819/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 14 order; writ challenge under Article 226/227 refused for failure to exhaust alternate remedy; appeal before DRT available; CJM Bengaluru Rural District order dated 15.04.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.490/2025; certiorari denied; Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Lalit Jain; United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon relied on; writ petition dismissed; interim orders discharged; NC: 2026:KHC:37024; CNR KAHC010478232026.

What did the court decide?

An 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 since the Tribunal was established specifically to adjudicate such lis. ¶37

Sri Lalit Jain Vs Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the CJM, Bengaluru Rural District, in Crl.Misc.No.490/2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be challenged through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, notwithstanding the alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the DRT.

¶29

Court's answer

¶37

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, resort must be had to that statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226, and a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless statutory remedies are ill-suited to an extraordinary situation.

¶38

Key takeaways

Relying on the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others that High Courts should not ignore statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and should exercise discretion with caution, care and circumspection, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ms. Justice Jyoti M) dismissed WP No. 21819 of 2026 (GM-DRT) filed by Sri Lalit Jain under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.04.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, in Crl.Misc.No.490/2025 (Annexure-H), whereby the petition of Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was allowed. Holding that an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction since an alternate remedy of appeal lies before the DRT, and that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory remedies, and invoking the Apex Court's admonition in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others, the Judge declined to exercise discretionary power, leaving the petitioner free to approach the appropriate forum. Interim orders, if any, stand discharged and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37024 WP No. 21819 of 2026

¶3

CNR: KAHC010478232026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 21819 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. LALIT JAIN, S/O. TEJRAJ BANTIYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.50, YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. GURU RAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶15

SMT. SAVITHA B.M., W/O. M.C.KANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA N., S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶17

RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.2675, 11TH MAIN,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37024 WP No. 21819 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CNR: KAHC010478232026

¶21

D BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri.Yogesh V.Kotemath, counsel on behalf of

¶27

Sri.Virupakshaiah, for the petitioner appeared in person.

¶28

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶29

(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the similar nature quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.490/2025 passed by the chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru vide Annexure-H holding the same is illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶30

(b) Grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:37024 WP No. 21819 of 2026

¶34

CNR: KAHC010478232026

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner's urged several

¶36

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

¶37

Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.490/2025 and the Court vide order dated:15.04.2025 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 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.

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:37024 WP No. 21819 of 2026

¶42

CNR: KAHC010478232026

¶43

Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case

¶44

of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON

¶45

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 petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶47

Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order

¶48

granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶49

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶50

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Lalit Jain v. Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lalit Jain v. Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

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 Prashanth K v Vs Sri K N Mohan Reddy

Mr. Kandera K Suresh, Vs Canara Bank

Sri Kumar Vs Authorized Officer

Smt. Ambuja Krishnegowda Vs Karnataka Gramin Bank

Sri Nagendra H M, Vs Central Silk Board

Sri. Lalit Jain Vs Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha