Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramakrishna Reddy Dead By Lrs vs Union Bank Of India on 24 June, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
WP No. 17901 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 17901 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. KANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
A/A 70 YRS
2. SMT. SHASHIKALA MURTHY,
W/O N. MURTHY,
A/A 46 YRS,
R/A NO. 23, APOORVA ENCLAVE,
80 FT ROAD, NEAR K.NARAYANAPURA CROSS,
THANISANDRA, BENGALURU-560077.
3. SRI. G.R.KODANDARAMAREDDY,
S/O LATE SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
Digitally signed
by VIJAYA P A/A 42 YRS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PETITIONERS NO.1 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT
SRI. GANESH POULTRY FARM,
DODDAGANJUR VILLAGE,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-563125.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA
SADASHIVANAGAR BRANCH,
NO. 163, 9TH MAIN, 3 RD CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
WP No. 17901 of 2025
HC-KAR
RMV EXTN., SADASHIVANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560080.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/
AUTHORISED OFFICER,
SRI. VIKAS KUMAR YADAV.
2. SRI. G.R.LOKESH.,
S/O G.N.RAMAKRISHNAREDDY,
AGED/ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A SRI. GANESH POULTRY FARM,
DODDAGANJURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125,
CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR., ADVOCATE FOR
CAVEATOR RESPONDENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
SETTING ASIDE THE POSSESSION ORDER DATED 01.07.2023
PASSED BY THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CHIKKABALLAPURA VIDE CRL. MISC. NO. 177/2023 i.e.,
ANNEXURE -B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the validity of
the order at Annexure-B passed in Crl.Misc. No.177/2023.
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
HC-KAR
2. Various contentions have been raised including
that there is no provision under the SARFAESI Act to
proceed against the security interest created in agricultural
land in terms of Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act as
regards Item No. 1 of the Schedule Properties. Several
other contentions have been raised regarding the
procedure adopted by the bank leading to passing of the
impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for respondent - Bank submits
that the substantive remedy for the petitioner is before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the
inapplicability of the provisions of SARFAESI Act insofar as
the security interest created in agricultural land is a matter
that needs to be enquired into and has relied on several
judgments including the judgments of the Apex Court. It is
submitted that the security interest created in agricultural
land, ipso facto does not render unenforceable to
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
HC-KAR
SARFAESI Act and certain pre-conditions for claiming such
exemption, are required to be demonstrated.
4. 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:
"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
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
HC-KAR
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
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."
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off
relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
HC-KAR
remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All
contentions of both the sides are kept open.
7. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would
meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent -
Bank not to confirm the auction sale, if concluded as
scheduled, for a period of 3 weeks from today. In light of
the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the
inapplicability of provisions of SARFAESI Act with respect
to Item No.1 of the Schedule Properties, it is observed
that steps under the SARFAESI Act insofar as Item No.1 of
the Schedule Properties, would be taken only after
recording a finding regarding the applicability of SARFAESI
Act as regards Item No.1 of the Schedule Properties. As
regards the other schedule properties, observations made
above would apply. The respondent - Bank to furnish upon
request the accounts extract and other documents as may
be sought for.
NC: 2025:KHC:21978
HC-KAR
8. The interim protection granted under this order
is only to enable the petitioner to avail of the 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 matter may be proceeded uninfluenced by
the observations made herein.
9. 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.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
