A writ petition is not maintainable against orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when a statutory remedy is available via Section 17 to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.1038/2025 BY THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE - E).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 06.09.2025 passed in Crl.Misc. No.1038/2025 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (Annexure-E);

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to consider the representation dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure-D) and provide restructuring/relief as per RBI guidelines;

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.3 are the wife and husband respectively. Both of them have availed the housing loan from the respondent No.1/bank. The petitioner/wife along with her husband, daughter and mother-in-law was residing in the said flat since the date of purchase. In view of the disputes between the parties, the husband and the wife are living separately. It is stated that respondent No.1/bank at the behest of respondent No.3 had issued a notice on 20.05.2024 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the flat. Then the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.85/2024 and obtained an order of protection on 12.07.2024. Thereafter, as the husband had failed to pay the EMI, the respondent No.1/bank had classified the account as non-performing asset(NPA) in the month of July 2024 and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 05.09.2024, claiming an outstanding amount of Rs.1,21,17,951.77/-. Thereafter, the possession notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was issued.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that in view of the disputes between the wife and husband, the husband is not paying the EMI though he is in a position to pay the same. She had obtained an order under Crl.Misc. proceedings. If the auction is conducted and if the petitioner is dispossessed from the property, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner. It is also submitted that if the reasonable time is given, she will settle the disputes with the husband and whatever is the outstanding amount they would be paying the bank. It is submitted that the bank may be restrained from taking any steps pursuant to the possession notice 20.05.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and if the petitioner has any grievance against the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act , she has a remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is submitted that the bank has nothing to do with the disputes between the husband and the wife.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/ husband submits that as respondent No.3 has not paid the EMI, the account has been declared as non performing asset(NPA) and thereafter, he had not challenged any of the proceedings initiated by the bank. In fact, he had given several offers to the wife and they could not settle the disputes.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner, who is also a co-borrower/applicant has come before this Court questioning the notice issued under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act . No legal grounds are raised. What is the illegality with the