Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, JJ.
A.M. Akbar Ali S/o Late K.P. Adam Basha - Appellant
Vs.
Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. X.M. Joseph, Adv.
Court ruled that individuals not directly involved in a loan may still have to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 14 and 17 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appeal challenging dismissal of writ petition - Appellant's claim of not being borrower or guarantor rejected as unmeritorious - High Court emphasized remedies under SARFAESI Act must be exhausted before approaching under Article 226 - Court finds no error in relegating appellant to appellate remedy under the SARFAESI Act. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction - High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - Limited when effective statutory remedies are available. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge, arguing that their fundamental rights were violated due to improper dismissal of their writ petition regarding a property loan they were never involved in. The respondent granted a loan against the appellant's property without their knowledge.
Findings of Court:
The appellant was relegated to seek remedy under Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act as the argument that they were not a borrower or guarantor lacked merit. All contentions were kept open for the appellant to raise in the Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the appellant, not being a borrower or guarantor, is entitled to a writ remedy under Article 226?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that remedies under the SARFAESI Act should be exhausted and found that the High Court will not ordinarily entertain a petition where an effective remedy exists.
Result: Appeal rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's claims and positions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's reasoning on available remedies (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. legal framework for appeals under sarfaesi act (Para 4) |
| 4. outcome of appeal and directions (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19133/2023 (GM-RES).
2. Sri.X.M.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the fact that the appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor to the loan in question and also without appreciating the pleading and the material on record, has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. It is submitted that the fundamental rights of the appellant are violated. Hence, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 has played a mischief and obtained the orders under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'). It is also submitted that the proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act mandates an affidavit. However, no such affidavit is filed and without considering the same, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is contended that the appellant obtained financial assistance from the respondent No.3 by executing a conditional sale deed and thereafter, the entire amount was refunded. However, the respondent No.3 evaded execution of the cancellation of sale deed which compelled the appellant to file O.S.No.3299/2019. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 without knowledge of the appellant, granted loan to the respondent No.3 and on default, the proceedings were initiated, which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by granting the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"a) To declare that the first plaintiff is absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
b) To direct the first defendant to cancel registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2018, registered as Document No.HLS-1-02681/2018-19 of Book-I, stored in C.D. No.HLSD 166, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar (Halsuru), Bengaluru, executed by the first plaintiff in favour of first defendant in respect of schedule property.
c) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives or any person or persons claiming thorough or under them from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property."
5. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced and relegated the appellant to file an appeal under Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor and hence, he cannot be relegated to the remedy of appeal. The said contention has no merit. A plain reading of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act makes it clear that for 'any person' aggrieved by a notice under Section 13(4) or any action under Section 14, remedy lies under Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. SATYAWATI TANDON AND ORS. , AIR 2010 SC 3413 at paragraph 17 held as under:
"17. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed
