2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441707
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R NATARAJ
MRS. SARASWATI MADIWALE TAMBE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 110111/2025
##PAGE1##
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746
WP No. 110111 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 110111 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SARASWATI MADIWALE TAMBE
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KELAGINA ONI, ANCHE ARAVATAGI,
VTC AMBOLI, POST ARAVATAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD,
C LAH XA MN AD NRASHEKAR D.C. COUMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001.
KATTIMANI
DCLAHig XAit MNal ADy NR s AKigSAnHTeETdKI MbAy ARNI
LKD+oaa0crt5ena 3:ta 0i 2toa0nk2:a 5H, .D1ig 2hh .a3 Cr0wo 1ua6rdt : 5 Bo 7ef :n3c1h 3. THE COMPANY SECRETARY,
M/S EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED
[CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (CIN) IS
L65191TN1993PLC025280 AND
ITS REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 25280]
4TH FLOOR, PHASE II, SPENCER PLAZA NO.769,
MOUNT ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU, INDIA–600002.
4. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
M/S EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED
MAIN BRANCH OFFICE, UNAKAL, NEAR SIDDAPPAJA
##PAGE2##- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746
WP No. 110111 of 2025
HC-KAR
TEMPLE, OPP.BRTS BUS STOP, UNAKAL
TQ. HUBBALLI, DISTRICT DHARWAD-580020.
5. THE BRANCH AUTHORIZED MANAGER,
M/S EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED
NEAR C.B.T, DHARWAD,
TQ. AND DISTRICT DHARWAD-580001.
6. SHRI MADIWALA HANUMANTAPPA TAMBE
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KELAGINA ONI, ANCHE ARAVATAGI,
VTC AMBOLI, POST ARAVATAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
7. SMT. YALLAVVA HANUMANTAPPA TAMBE
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KELAGINA ONI, ANCHE ARAVATAGI,
VTC AMBOLI, POST ARAVATAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH IMPUGNED
POSSESSION NOTICE BEARING NO.NIL, DATED 21/08/2025,
VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND POSSESSION NOTICE BEARING NO.NIL
DATED 21/08/2025, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
##PAGE3##- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746
WP No. 110111 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)
The petitioner has challenged the possession notice, bearing
No.Nil, dated 21.08.2025, issued by respondent No.4 under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, For short, ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’
2. When this Court queried the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to how a writ petition is maintainable against
respondents No.3, 4 and 5, as they are neither State nor other
authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents No.3,
4 and 5 have invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2022,
and therefore a writ petition is maintainable.
3. Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 are constituents of private
small finance bank, which is neither a State nor an
instrumentality of the State. None of the fundamental rights of
the petitioner are violated by the respondents No.3, 4 and 5, but
they have exercised rights conferred on them under SARFAESI
Act, 2002. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, provides a
##PAGE4##- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18746
WP No. 110111 of 2025
HC-KAR
remedy of filing application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable against them. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. and
Others Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another, SLP (Civil) Nos.22021-22022 of 2022, has held
that a writ petition challenging actions initiated under the
Provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against a private bank, is
not maintainable.
4. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed as
not maintainable
5. It is open for the petitioner to avail the alternative
remedy of an