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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27968

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Jyoti M, J
N.Narasimha Swamy – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 3892 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Kumar, V.B.Ravishanker
For the Respondents: Narayan Shenoy

A writ petition is not maintainable against proceedings or sale notices initiated under the SARFAESI Act, as the aggrieved party must exhaust alternative statutory remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The present case involves a challenge to sale measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner sought the quashing of a sale notice and a direction to the respondent bank to accept a one-time settlement proposal, citing the pendency of an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The central issue is whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with statutory proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The Court, drawing upon settled law, reiterated that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for challenging possession or sale notices issued under these provisions. The writ petition is dismissed due to a lack of merit.

Table of Content
1. summary of parties and the reliefs sought by the petitioner under the act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. non-maintainability of writ petitions against sarfaesi action. (Para 3 , 4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Vinay Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.V.B.Ravishankar, for the petitioner and Sri.Narayan Shenoy, counsel for caveator/ respondent have appeared in person.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and to quash or the measures initiated under provisions of SARFAESI Act; at Annexure-A.

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent bank to accept the one time settlement proposal vide Annexure-A.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the Sale Notice dated 19.01.2024 published in Indian Express Daily Kannada newspaper dated 19.01.2024 vide Annexure-A as the same is issued during pendency of application filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA.No.317/2023 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal-I.

(d) To grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

4. The petitioner's grievance is about the issuance of the Sale notice. The relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top