Smt Leelavathamma Alias Leelavathy Nagaraj v. Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 1410 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. LEELAVATHAMMA ALIAS LEELAVATHY NAGARAJ, W/O. SRI. T.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SY.NO.38, RAJ ESTATE, KEERANAGERE, HAROHALLY VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562112. REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SMT. ANITHA N.RAJ,

¶2SMT. ANITHA N.RAJ, D/O. SRI. T.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT SY.NO.38, RAJ ESTATE, KEERANAGERE, HAROHALLY VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562112. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SANDHYA U.PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER, REGISTERED UNDER

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES ACT, ADMIN OFFICE, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER Smt.Sandhya U Prabhu, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Lokesh K.V., counsel for the respondent appeared through video conferencing.

¶2This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the possession notice issued by respondent bank dated 07.01.2023 produced at Annexure-F bearing No.TGMCB/SEC/312/2022-23 in respect of schedule property.

(b) Grant any such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶4The authorized officer of the Bank issued possession notice on

07.01.2023. 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. Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the 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 great caution, care and circumspection. 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.

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20