Dismissed¶46

Sri T B Dhruva Kumar v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2026WP/8911/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 14 order — challenge by writ — maintainability — alternate remedy of appeal before DRT — Article 226 not to circumvent statutory procedure — certiorari sought against order dated 16.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.54/2023 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru) — Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. — United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon relied on — writ petition dismissed (GM-DRT, High Court of Karnataka, Jyoti M, J., 07-07-2026).

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, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. ¶38

Sri T B Dhruva Kumar Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.54/2023, allowing the Bank's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, could be challenged under Article 226 despite the alternate remedy of appeal before the DRT.

¶38

Court's answer

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures; where a statute creates a right or liability and itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing it, resort must be had to that statutory remedy, and 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

Key takeaways

Relying on the Apex Court's observation in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon that High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act, the Court declined to exercise power under writ jurisdiction, expressing hope that High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by borrowers seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.54/2023 of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, by which the Bank's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was allowed. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) 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 and the litigants are not remediless; (ii) Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures, and where a statute prescribes the remedy, resort must be had to it; (iii) relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, cautioning that High Courts should act with great caution, care and circumspection in such matters. Interim order, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33921 WP No. 8911 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 8911 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. T.B.DHRUVA KUMAR, S/O. SRI. BELLACHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT THORANAMAVU VILLAGE, KUDUVALLI POST, VASTARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577133.

¶10

SMT. BINDU DHRUVAKUMAR, W/O. SRI. T.B.DHRUVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT THORANAMAVU VILLAGE, KUDUVALLI POST, VASTARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577133

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., NO.3/5, JAWARAPPA COMPLEX, SY.NO.43/3, MUNESHWARA NAGAR, ULALLA MAIN ROAD, MALLATHALLI, BEGNALURU-560056. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶16

EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., 4TH FLOOR, PHASE II, SPENCER PLAZA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:33921 WP No. 8911 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NO.769, MOUNT ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600002. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VINAY S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶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.Prasanna V.R., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Vijay S., counsel for caveator / respondent No.1. appeared in person. 2.

¶27

Though the matter is listed today for preliminary

¶28

hearing, it is heard.

¶29

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶30

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 16.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.54/2023 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Chikkamagaluru, vide Annexure-A.

¶31

(ii) Any other writ or directions to meet the ends of justice.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:33921 WP No. 8911 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Counsel for the parties urged several contentions.

¶36

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶37

Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition

¶38

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.54/2023 and the Court vide order dated:16.11.2023 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 .

¶39

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.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:33921 WP No. 8911 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶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 power under writ jurisdiction.

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri T B Dhruva Kumar v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T B Dhruva Kumar v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

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

Worthy Engineering Vs Manjunath M

Sri.Khairul Islam, Vs Central Silk Board

The Management of Vs Smt. M. Jayalakshmi

Sri Paul D Souza Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Mr Chandrakanth H Vs the Authorised Officer

Ms. Anindita Roy Vs the Manager