SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top