Dismissed

Mrs. Gayithri N v. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026WP/32635/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition by property owners challenging a possession notice issued by Ujjivan Small Finance Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the writ petition was filed despite available statutory remedies under the Act and constituted an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim orders discharged pending applications disposed of.

Mrs. Gayithri N Vs Ujjivan Small Finance Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36393 WP No. 32635 of 2025

¶3

CNR: KAHC010705702025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 32635 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. GAYITHRI N., W/O. LATE MR. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WARD NO.26, KASHIM PALYA, SHIDLAGATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.

¶10

MR. R.RAJA,

¶11

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

¶12

S/O. MR. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ASHRAYA LAYOUT, SHIDLAGATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. KALLESHAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶15

AND:

¶16

UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK, BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.36, 9TH FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, TTMC BUS STOP, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:36393 WP No. 32635 of 2025

¶20

CNR: KAHC010705702025

¶21

UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK, HEAD OFFICE AND REGISTERED OFFICE AT GRAPE GARDEN, NO.27, 3RD A CROSS, 18TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SONA RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶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 IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.Kalleshappa K.S., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Sona Rajkumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.Joseph Anilkumar A., for the respondents appeared in person.

¶28

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶29

(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing Annexure-A dated 14.10.2025 issued by the respondent for taking the passion of the schedule property.

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:36393 WP No. 32635 of 2025

¶33

CNR: KAHC010705702025

¶34

(ii) Issue such other writ / order / direction as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.

¶35

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

¶36

The authorized officer of the Bank issued Possession notice on 14.10.2025. The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. Any person/s served with SARFAESI Act notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) 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 demand/ possession 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 .

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:36393 WP No. 32635 of 2025

¶41

CNR: KAHC010705702025

¶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.

¶45

The Apex Court in Phoenix Case's has held that filing of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. It is also observed that whenever a notice is issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a litigant has statutory

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:36393 WP No. 32635 of 2025

¶48

¶49

CNR: KAHC010705702025

¶50

efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. The petition is devoid of merits. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary power. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Mrs. Gayithri N v. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Gayithri N v. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Sri. Krishna Murthy

Smt. Premaleela Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Madhusudhan R Vs M/S Canara Bank

Official Liquidator of M/S. United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd, (in Liqn) Vs M/S Lounge Hospitality LLP

Mr. Anirudh Kedia Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Shree Chamundi Mopeds Limited

Mr. Anirudh Kedia, Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board