Disposed¶49

M/S Taha Educational and Rural Development v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2026WP/24693/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI possession notice; maintainability of writ petition; alternative remedy before DRT; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Canara Bank Hiriyur Branch; educational charitable trust borrower; outstanding Rs.77,67,310/-; undertaking affidavit; one year time to pay refused; writ disposed with liberty to pursue statutory remedy; all I.As. closed; Karnataka High Court; GM-DRT; single Judge Lalitha Kanneganti; decision 03.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy, if any, in accordance with law; all I.As. in the petition shall stand closed. No relief on the prayer to quash the possession notice. ¶49

M/S Taha Educational and Rural Development Vs Canara… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy, if any, in accordance with law; all I.As. in the petition shall stand closed. No relief on the prayer to quash the possession notice.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution questioning a possession notice issued in SARFAESI proceedings is maintainable before the High Court, given that the aggrieved person has a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

When proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the person aggrieved has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT); a petitioner questioning a possession notice cannot come before the High Court.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot grant one year time for paying the amount; had the petitioner undertaken to pay within four weeks as earlier stated, the Court would have accommodated it, but with the affidavit seeking one year the Court finds no reasons to interfere.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again deprecated the practice of the High Court interfering with SARFAESI proceedings.obiter¶47
The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy, if any, in accordance with law, and all I.As. in the petition stand closed.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an educational and rural development charitable trust seeking quashing of a possession notice dated 03.08.2024 issued by Canara Bank, Hiriyur Branch (Annexure-U). During pendency the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments, first offering to pay the outstanding of Rs.77,67,310/- within eight weeks with an undertaking affidavit, and ultimately seeking one year's time on the ground of hardship to the minority, non-profit institution and its students. Held, disposing of the petition: (i) when proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and cannot come before the High Court questioning the possession notice; the Apex Court has time and again deprecated High Court interference with SARFAESI proceedings; (ii) the Court cannot grant one year time for paying the amount, and finding no reasons to interfere, disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law; all I.As. were closed. Coram: Lalitha Kanneganti, J. (single Judge). Decision dated 03.03.2026.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:12900 WP No. 24693 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24693 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S TAHA EDUCATIONAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD) TAHA COMPLEX MAIN ROAD HIRIYUR

¶10

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 598 REPREENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI B.S.NAWAB SAB S/O LATE ABDUL SATHAR SAB AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O <C= DIVISION AZAD NAGARA HIRIYUR

¶13

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 598

¶14

&PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12900 WP No. 24693 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

CANARA BANK HIRIYUR BRANCH CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 572 143 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶20

CHIEF MANAGER

¶21

&RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶24

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED: 03.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-U TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:12900 WP No. 24693 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition is filed on the following relief:

¶32

"Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

¶33

a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature of writ quashing the possession notice dated 03.08.2024 issued by the respondent produced as Annexure-U to the writ petition;

¶34

b) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ including the cost as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶35

When this matter came up before the Court on 14.01.2026, when this Court wanted to dismiss the petition as

¶36

the same is not maintainable before this Court, submission is made that the outstanding amount as on 14.01.2026 is Rs.77,67,310/- and the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount within a period of eight weeks and they will file an undertaking affidavit before this Court. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed as part heard on 19.01.2026. Then the matter came up on 30.01.2026. Again, on that day, the Court has passed an order that if the undertaking affidavit is not filed

¶37

by the next date of hearing, the petition will be decided on the merits of the matter. Then again on 24.02.2026, the petitioner has sought for time and the matter was directed to be listed on

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12900 WP No. 24693 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

03.03.2026. When this matter is listed before this Court today,

¶41

it is submitted that an undertaking affidavit is filed and petitioner seeks one year time to pay the amount. It is submitted that it is a minority, non profit organization and if the time is not granted, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner, as well as to the students who are studying in the said institution.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that petitioner has repeatedly sought adjournments by offering to deposit the amount, this court from time to time adjourned the matter and one year time is not acceptable to the bank. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy and on that ground, the writ petition has to be dismissed.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In this case, the petitioner has questioned the possession notice. When the possession notice is issued by the respondent, the petitioner cannot come before this Court. When the proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the person who is aggrieved with the same has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Hon'ble

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:12900 WP No. 24693 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Apex Court has time and again deprecated the practice of the High Court interfering with the SARFAESI proceedings. If the petitioner had come up with an undertaking that he is ready to pay the amount within four weeks as stated before this Court, this Court would have accommodated the petitioner. But affidavit is filed before this Court seeking one year time, this Court cannot grant one year time for paying the amount. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy, if any, in accordance with law.

¶50

ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶52

PKN

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

M/S Taha Educational and Rural Development v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Taha Educational and Rural Development v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Rachappa Channappa Bagalkot

Sri Shivaram M Hebbar Vs State Bank of India

Thimmaiah Vs Basavaiah @ Basavaraje Gowda

Smt.Halamma Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal -1

Shri Krishna D Vs Union of India

St. Johns Medical College Hospital Vs the Additional Deputy Commissioner