Krishnamurthy H N, v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 12146 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:

¶1KRISHNAMURTHY H.N., S/O. NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶2SMT. JANAKI, W/O. KRISHNAMURTHY H.N., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT NEAR BUS-STOP, HIREMAGALUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KAVITHA N., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD., (BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU BRANCH, NEAR TOWN POLICE STATION, MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.V.AVINASH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

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

ORAL ORDER

When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either personally or through video conferencing.

Sri.B.V.Avinash, counsel for the respondent appeared in person.

¶2This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Quash the Section 14 order passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.293/2024 dated

12.12.2024 at Chikkamagaluru vide Annexure-C (insofar as petitioners are concerned).

(b) Issue directions to the respondent Bank not to take physical possession without following due process of law.

(c) Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant including cost of the case, in the view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity.

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

¶4Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.293/2024 and the Court vide order dated:12.12.2024 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. 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 power under writ jurisdiction. The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits.

¶5Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 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.: 30