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
NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:49100-DB
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
