| |
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 386
|
| Court : High Court of Karnataka |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 28737 Of 2024 (GM-DRT) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE M. JYOTI |
| Parties : M/s. Misba Silk Traders, Represented By It\'s Proprietor Ziya Ualla Khan, Ramanagara & Others Versus State Of Karnataka, Represented It\'s Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: I.M. Sameer, P. Abdul Ansar, Advocates (Absent). For the Respondents: R1, K.P. Yoganna, AGA, R2, Vignesh Shetty, R3, C. Vinay Swamy, R4 & R5, Ravish Benni, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 30-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 39697,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- SARFAESI Act
- Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act
- Section 17 of the Act
2. Catch Words:
- Certiorari
- Mandamus
- Possession notice
- SARFAESI Act
- Writ petition
- Statutory remedy
3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking a certiorari to quash a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act and mandamus directing insurers to honour policies. The respondents argued that the SARFAESI Act provides specific remedial mechanisms, including filing objections and approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. The Court observed that when a statute prescribes its own remedy, Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass it. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that writ petitions challenging SARFAESI possession notices constitute an abuse of process. Consequently, the petition was found to lack merit. The Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioners to pursue the appropriate statutory forum.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs.)
Oral Order
1. Though matter called, there is no representation on behalf of petitioners.
Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for respondent No.2, Sri.C.Vinay Swamy, counsel for respondent No.3, Sri.Ravish Benni, counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 appeared in person.
2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of possession notice dated 31.08.2024 vide Annexure-L issued by 2nd and 3rd respondent bankers.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus by directing the 4th and 5th respondent insurance company to consider the insurance policies at Annexures-B, B1, B2 with regard to the loss undergone by the petitioners due to the natural calamity of flood and also fire accident, when the insurance policy was in force and compensate the petitioner in accordance with the set principles of law in the interest of Greater Justice to the petitioners.
(c) Pass such other orders that this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
3. Counsel for the respondents urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
4. The authorized officer of the Bank issued possession notice on 31.08.2024. The petitioners' grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice. Any person/s aggrieved by issuance of notices under SARFAESI Act/ Rules are not powerless. They have a liberty of filing objections and also approach DRT under Section 17 of the Act, appealing to the Tribunal if needed. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis.
It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation.
The Apex Court in Phoenix Case's has held that filing of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. It is also observed that whenever a notice is issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, a litigant has statutory efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, and has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners may approach appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.
Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
|
| |
