Karnataka High Court
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kotian vs State Bank Of India on 27 June, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22757
WP No. 12975 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 12975 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. PRADEEP KUMAR KOTIAN
S/O MR. VITTAL ANCHAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT D.NO. 5-629, PRATHEEK.
3RD CROSS, PERLAGURI,
NEAR VASTHALA APARTMENT,
KAVOOR, MANGALURU 575 015
ALSO R/AT 'JMJ VILLA'
D.NO. 1-778 PAJEER VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK-574199.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RENSPRE PRITHESH DSOUZA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
PRAKASH N REGISTERED UNDER
Location: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955,
HIGH
COURT OF HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
KARNATAKA STATE BANK BHAWAN, M.C. ROAD,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021.
ALSO AT RETAIL ASSETS CREDIT PROCESSING
CENTRE (RACPC)
DAMODHAR TOWERS, II FLOOR,
SHARBATHKATTE BUS STOP, AIRPORT ROAD,
YEYYADI, MANGALORE - 575 008
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
2. MRS. SARITHA PRADEEP K.
W/O MR. PRADEEP KUMAR KOTIAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22757
WP No. 12975 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT D.NO. 5-829, PRATHEEK,
3RD CROSS, PERLAGURI,
NEAR VASTHALA APARTMENT,
KAVOOR, MANGALURU 575 015.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDEEP S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN CP3817/25)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 03.02.2025 OF THE WRIT
SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the possession notice dated 03.02.2025 at Annexure-A.
2. Learned Counsel for respondent-Bank submits that the interim order was passed by this court on 28.04.2025 subject to petitioner making deposit as per the timeline prescribed in para 2 of the order dated 28.04.2025. The said direction is extracted as follows:
"2. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that due to financial stringency, the petitioner could not make payment of the due -3- NC: 2025:KHC:22757 WP No. 12975 of 2025 HC-KAR amounts. The total amount due as on today is Rs,2,04,44,444/-. The petitioner in order to establish his bonafides would make payment of a sum equivalent to 20% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.40,88,889/- within four weeks from today, that is on or before 26.05.2025 and another sum equivalent to 20% of the due amount within four weeks thereafter, that is by 23.06.2025."
3. Learned Counsel for respondent-Bank submits that conditions imposed have not been adhered to.
4. It is further submitted that as against the proceedings under Section 14, petitioner has substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
5. 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:
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:22757 WP No. 12975 of 2025 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22757 WP No. 12975 of 2025 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:22757 WP No. 12975 of 2025 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."
6. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it can be noticed that several factual contention raised by the petitioner are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open.
8. In light of disposal of writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent- bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of two weeks from today.
9. 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:22757 WP No. 12975 of 2025 HC-KAR authorities before whom petitioner may approach are to look at the matter afresh uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
10. 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 NP