Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J
M/S D K K WIRE CUT BRICKS INDUSTRIES – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP No. 10064 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. PRAMOD R.
For the Respondents: MS. DIVYA PURANDAR
The SARFAESI Act provides a self-contained code for remedies, limiting writ jurisdiction in such matters.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the challenge to an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which appointed a Court Commissioner for possession. The petitioner was granted an interim stay but failed to comply with conditions. The court emphasized the substantive remedy under Section 17 and referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Union Bank of India v. Stayawati Tondon. The petition was disposed of with directions for the respondent-bank.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to possession order under sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding compliance and statutory remedies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observation on statutory scheme and writ jurisdiction. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mandya in Crl.Mis.135/2024 at Annexure-F, which is a notice issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Mandya, to the petitioner for taking vacant possession of the property.
2. It is seen that the order at Annexure-E is an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFASI Act. In terms of the said order, Court Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the schedule property. The said order was challenged before this court.
3. This court by interim order dated 28.04.2025 has recorded the undertaking of the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4,80,000/-within four weeks and an interim order of stay of order at Annexure-E and F was passed restraining the respondent-bank from dispossessing the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-bank submits that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order.
5. It is further submitted that as against the proceedings under Section 14 , petitioner has substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act .
6. It is further submitted that in light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Stayawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there should be no interference by way of writs where statutory scheme provides for substantive remedy, the present petition is not maintainable.
7. It is noticed that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the assertion that interim order has not been complied as made by the learned counsel for the respondent also stand uncontroverted.
8. Taking note of the nature of relief sought and the law laid down by the Apex Court in several matters to the effect that statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code and writs ought not to be entertained as a matter of course, it would be appropriate to dispose off the writ petition keeping open all the contentions of the petitioner to be raised by way of substantive remedy as available under the SARFAESI Act .
