[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Sudha S vs The Bangalore City Co Operative Bank Ltd on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
WA No. 713 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 713 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUDHA S
W/O. THIMME GOWDA
AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SELF-EMPLOYED
RESIDING AT NO.814
4TH MAIN, BEHIND AANJANEYA TEMPLE
GANGONDANA HALLI
BENGALURU - 560 039
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B AND:
Location: 1. THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
High Court NO.3, 1ST FLOOR
of Karnataka
PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018
HAVING A BRANCH AT NO.7E
14TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
WA No. 713 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
(UNDER THE SERFAESI ACT, 2002)
THE BANGALORE CITY
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO.3 1ST FLOOR, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018
REPRESENTED BY
SRI APPAJAIH C.N.
S/O. NARASE GOWDA
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS
3. SRI C. HARIKRISHNA A,
ADVOCATE, ROLL NO.KAR/629/2005
R/AT NO.524, 1ST A CROSS
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 032
BEING THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
APPOINTED AS PER ORDER
DATED 09-07-2024
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF
THE 46TH A.C.M.M. BENGALURU
IN C.MISC.NO.5727/2023
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED
25/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.18683/2024 (GM-RES) GOT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU AND
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION THEREOF.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
WA No. 713 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.18683/2024 (GM-RES).
2. A plain reading of the said order indicates that the learned
counsel for the petitioner had, after advancing arguments, sought
leave of the court to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In view
of the above, the learned Single Judge directed that it was open for
the petitioner to avail of such remedy as was available in law.
3. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an order
dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned ACMM, Bengaluru in
C.Misc.No.5727/2023. The averments made in the writ petition are
to the effect that the petitioner had availed term loans to the extent
of `2,43,00,000/- (Rupees two crores and forty three lakhs) from
respondent No.1 (Bank).
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
HC-KAR
4. The appellant had defaulted on its repayment and
obligations. Consequently, the Bank had classified the appellant's
account as a Non-Performing Asset [NPA]. Thereafter, the Bank
had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act] in respect of the secured
assets. The same was followed by a notice issued under Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, on 27.03.2023, the Bank
filed an application before the ACMM, Bengaluru, under Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act (Civil Misc. No. 5727/2023) for taking
possession of the secured assets to enforce its security interest.
5. It is stated that the physical possession of the secured
assets was taken over. However, the same was challenged by the
appellant in Writ Petition No.25222/2023 c/w Writ Petition
No.26973/2023. It is averred in the writ petition that pursuant to the
interim order passed in the said writ petitions, the possession of the
secured assets was restored. Thereafter, the petitioner approached
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru [DRT] by filing a
securitisation application, being S.A No.72/2024. And, withdrew the
writ petitions filed before this court.
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
HC-KAR
6. The learned DRT passed an order dated 09.07.2024
directing that the status quo as to the secured assets be
maintained, subject to the appellant depositing 25% of the amounts
due in two instalments within a period of eight weeks. However, the
appellant did not comply with the said condition.
7. Thereafter, the Bank approached the learned ACMM and
obtained orders under Section 14 of the. SARFAESI Act for the
taking over of the secured assets.
8. The appellant filed another petition - the Writ Petition
No.18683/2024 (GM-RES) - impugning the orders passed by the
ACMM, which was disposed of as withdrawn by the impugned
order.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the appellant
had not sought withdrawal of the writ petition. He submits that he
advanced arguments on the interim application and, after further
argument, accepted that he was required to approach the DRT for
interim relief. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
HC-KAR
passed the order without considering the questions raised in the
writ petition.
10. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition against an
order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would be
maintainable because there is no appropriate remedy in respect of
the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He submits that
the power of the learned DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act is confined only to investigation and not to the orders passed
for the enforcement of a security interest. He submits that the
SARFAESI Act is a special Act and therefore, the orders passed
under the said Act would be subject to the supervisory jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He also
submits that no order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for
taking over possession of the secured assets could be passed as
the asset involved is occupied by various tenants.
11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
12. We find no merit in the contentions advanced by him.
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
HC-KAR
13. A plain reading of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act clearly
indicates that any person aggrieved by the measures referred to in
Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act may make an application to the
Debts Recovery Tribunal. The orders passed under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act are in furtherance of the orders passed under
Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The contention that the power
of the DRT under Section 17(2) and Section 17(3) of the
SARFAESI Act is limited to investigation is plainly erroneous.
14. There is no cavil that this Court has supervisory power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In appropriate cases,
it may be necessary for the court to exercise such powers.
However, it is not necessary for the court to exercise jurisdiction in
cases where alternative remedies are available.
15. We find no infirmity with the order of the learned Single
Judge declining to entertain the petition in respect of the matters
which are squarely covered by the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act. As noted above, in this case, the petitioner has already
approached the DRT and the learned counsel submits that the
proceedings before the DRT are pending.
NC: 2026:KHC:3615-DB
HC-KAR
16. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
17. The pending interlocutory application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
