Karnataka High Court
Mrs M V Jayalakshmi vs The Authorized Officer on 2 July, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
WP No. 17232 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 17232 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. M.N. JAYALAKSHMI,
W/O RAMASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
NO. 145, 60FT ROAD,
BEML 5TH STAGE,
NEAR SHAKTI HILLS RESORT,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 096.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PRIYA P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
VIJAYA P
Location: KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,
HIGH COURT
OF REPRSENTED BY MR. PRAKASH,
KARNATAKA
ARB DIVISIONAL OFFICE BUILDING,
NO. 6 SHRI VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, VV PURAM,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 004.
2. M/S CUBATIC INFRA AND POWER (P) (L)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. SATHIBABU THIPARTHI
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
2ND FLOOR, DWARKA HEIGHTS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
WP No. 17232 of 2025
HC-KAR
PLOT NO. 17, JUBILEE ENCLAVE,
MADHAPUR, HITECH CITY,
HYDERABAD - 500 081.
3. MR. SATHIBABU THIPARTHI
S/O SURAYANARAYANA THIPARTHI,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 149, ESWAR VILLAS,
NIZAMPET ROAD, KUKATPALLY,
NIZAMPET, HYDERABAD - 500 072.
4. MRS. SAI DEEPTHI KESANA,
W/O PHANI KUMAR GUDIDEVUNI,
FLAT NO. 302, SAI KALYAN RESIDENCY,
BANDARI LAYOUT, NEAR NRI COLLEGE,
NIZAMPET, QUTUBULLAPUR,
K.V.RANGAREDDY, HYDERABAD - 500 090.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 277 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO SET ASIDE
ILLEGAL SALE CONDUCTED ON 11-3-25, ON THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY, AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS U/S.17(3) AND
ALSO AS PER SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT (2018) 1 S.C.C. 626
IN AGARWAL TRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED V PUNJAB NATIONAL
BANK AND OTHER SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT
JUDGMENTS, ON ALL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK AS PER THE GROUNDS LISTED IN THE
APPEAL AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
WP No. 17232 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has called in question the sale stated
to have been conducted on 11.03.2025. Various
contentions have been raised by the petitioner including
that the procedure under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act
has not been complied with.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner ought to have approached the DRT by way of
appropriate proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act.
3. In light of the contentions raised it is relevant to take
note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others
- (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would
be to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive
remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The relevant
observations of the Apex Court are as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
HC-KAR
"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the
settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with
greater rigour in matters involving recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and
the dues of banks and other financial institutions.
In our view, while dealing with the petitions
involving challenge to the action taken for recovery
of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in
mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament
and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are
a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only
contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of
the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-
judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any
aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the
High Court must insist that before availing remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must
exhaust the remedies available under the relevant
statute.
44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are
conscious that the powers conferred upon the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue
to any person or authority, including in appropriate
cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
HC-KAR
including the five prerogative writs for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III or for any other purpose are very wide and there
is no express limitation on exercise of that power
but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of
the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this
Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in
view while exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of
alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not
one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any
reason why the High Court should entertain a
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the
petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by
filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the
particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism
for redressal of his grievance.
55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite
repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High
Courts continue to ignore the availability of
statutory remedies under the DRT Act and
the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 for passing orders which have serious
adverse impact on the right of banks and other
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
HC-KAR
financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope
and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise
their discretion in such matters with greater
caution, care and circumspection."
4. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court,
it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by
the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated
in the present proceedings.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating
the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as
regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both
the sides are kept open.
6. The interim protection granted under this order is
only to enable the petitioner to avail of his substantive
remedy and must not be considered to be an order passed
on the basis of adjudication on merits. Upon the lapse of
the time stipulated, the protection granted would cease to
operate and the authorities before whom petitioner may
NC: 2025:KHC:23694
HC-KAR
approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by
the observations made herein.
7. Needless to state that while considering the aspect of
limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted
before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken
note of appropriately.
8. Needless to state any action taken would be subject
to orders to be passed in the appropriate proceedings. All
contentions are kept open.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
DHA
CT: BHK
