Karnataka High Court
Canara Bank vs Mr Touseef Parveez Mohamedali on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB
WA No. 226 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
CANARA BANK
MANDYA REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.4F, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
CHIKKA MANDYA KERE,
MANDYA-571401
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
MR.GURINDER PAL SINGH
(DIVISIONAL MANAGER)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. MR TOUSEEF PARVEEZ MOHAMEDALI
NIRMALA S/O.LATE MOHAMMED ALI @ AFSAR
DEVI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
Location:
HIGH COURT WARD NO.14, 3RD CROSS,
OF MANDYA ROAD,
KARNATAKA MAYANNANA KOPPALU ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571432
2. SMT. IQBAL UNNISA
W/O.LATE MOHAMMED ALI @ AFSAR
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
WARD NO.14, 3RD CROSS,
MANDYA ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB
WA No. 226 of 2025
HC-KAR
MAYANNANA KOPPALU ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571432
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DDATED 01.02.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE
COURT IN WP No. 2810/2025 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. None appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. It is seen that none had appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the previous hearing as well (hearing held on 20.11.2025). We had deferred the hearing and had called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to inform the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 regarding the hearing scheduled today. We are now informed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have taken back the file from Mr.N.Kumar, learned counsel, who had entered -3- NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB WA No. 226 of 2025 HC-KAR appearance on their behalf. He, thus, has no instructions to continue representing the respondents. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to defer the hearing of the present appeal any further.
3. The appellant [Canara Bank] has filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 01.02.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2810/2025 (GM-RES), whereby further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcements of Security Interests Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act] were stayed subject to the respondents [writ petitioners] depositing 20% of the amount of Rs.1,70,70,712/- within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The learned Single Judge has also directed that if the 10% of the amount is deposited by the writ petitioners, the appellant would re-deliver the possession of the subject properties to the writ petitioners.
4. This Court had, on 19.03.2025 passed an order staying the impugned order till the next date of hearing. The said order continues to operate.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB WA No. 226 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. One of the fundamental questions that arises for consideration is, whether it is apposite to entertain the writ petition having regard to Sections 17 and 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. In terms of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, no Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of matters, which the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate under the SARFAESI Act and no injunction should be granted by any Court or any other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken pursuant to any power conferred under the SARFAESI Act or the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
7. We also note that the writ petitioners have a statutory remedy of agitating their grievance under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in respect of any measures referred to in Sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.
8. Although existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; but it is equally well settled that Courts would normally refrain -5- NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB WA No. 226 of 2025 HC-KAR from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the event of an existence of an alternate remedy.
9. Further, the impugned order does not provide any reasons for issuing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has not noted any allegation or any grounds for assailing any measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court has also not expressed any prima facie view, which would warrant passing an interim order.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
11. The present, appeal is accordingly, allowed.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25