A writ petition is not maintainable against a possession notice issued by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, as an alternative remedy exists before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. AYUB ALI,

S/O. SYED MUNAVAR,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

R/AT NO.12, PARVATHIPURA,

2ND CROSS, HOSKOTE,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA-562114.

2. MOHSEEN UNNISA,

W/O. AYUB ALI,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

R/AT NO.12, PARVATHIPURA,

2ND CROSS, HOSKOTE,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA-562114.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR G.R., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. SANTHOSH V.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE CANARA BANK,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

CORPORATE OFFICE: ARM BRANCH,

NEW EXTENSION, NEAR ITO,

DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE, KOLAR TOWN,

KOLAR-563101.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VINAY BHAT, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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.Sridhar G.R., counsel on behalf of Sri.Santhosh V.S., for the petitioners and Sri.Vinay Bhat, counsel for the respondent appeared in person.

2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the possession notice dated 10.07.2025 shown at Annexure-D issued by the respondent to the petitioner \s as illegal and void in the eye of law.

(b) Call for records from the respondent's authority.

(c) Grant any such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners never received demand notice, as required under the SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines. He argued that after receipt of the possession notice, the petitioners made a request to clear the dues on OTS scheme. He contended that because of the limitation, the petitioners are compelled to file the writ petition without exhausting the alternate remedy. Lastly, counsel submits that as per the order of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioners have deposited the amount. Counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and possession notice to be quashed.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

5. The petitioners' grievance is about the issuance of the possession 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 demand/ possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.