1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.28287/2018(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI JAWAHAR KRISHNA G

S/O SRI. GDR KRISHNA,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

R/AT NO.L77, EAGLETON GOLF,

SHYANAMANGALA CROSS,

BIDADI, BENGALURU-572109

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHAVAN M, ADV.,)

AND:

1.

HDFC BANK LTD

REP BY SENIOR MANAGER

SRI KISHORE KUMAR HEGDE,

AT GOLDEN TOWERS,

3^RD FLOOR, NEXT TO GOLDEN ENCLAVE,

KIDIHALLI, OLD AIRPORT ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 017

2.

SRI. GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA

S/O GOGINENI VENKATAPPA DAMODARA NAIDU,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

R/AT NO.1334, 26^TH MAIN, 27^TH CROSS,

BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE,

BENGALURU-560 070

3.

SMT. G.K.PARIJATH

W/O GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

R/AT NO.1334, 26^TH MAIN, 27^TH CROSS,

2

BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE,

BENGALURU-560 070

4.

SMT. SONIKA KRISHNA G

D/O GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA,

R/AT NO.1334, 26^TH MAIN, 27^TH CROSS,

BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE,

BENGALURU-560 070

... RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.06.2018 UNDER SECTION 14 OF

THE SARFAESWI ACT IN CR.MISC.NO.2670/2017 ACT PERMITING

THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE VACANT PHYSICAL

POSSESSION

OF

IMMOVABLE

SCHEDULE

PROPERTY

IN

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS, WRIT

DIRECTIONS, DECLARATIONS AS THE HON'BLE COURT MAY

DEEM FIT TO GRANT INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioner has called in question order passed by the

jurisdictional Magistrate dated 01.06.2018, whereunder

application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 14 of

the SARFAESI Act, has been allowed by permitting

respondent No.1 to take physical possession of the

schedule property.

3

2.

An order passed under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act is appealable under Section 17 of the Act

and any action of secured creditor under Section 13(4) of

the Act can be agitated by an applicant before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal and as such this Court declines to

entertain this petition, particularly in the background of

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon

and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, whereunder it

has been held that when the alternate remedy is available,

High Court should decline to entertain a petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.

Hence, without going into the merits of the

case viz., as to whether petitioner has got 1/3^rd right, title

over the scheduled property which had been mortgaged by

the secured creditor, petition stands rejected.

Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the

impugned order forthwith on same being substituted by

4

photo copy in the light of the fact that petitioner intends to

pursue his grievance before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

SD/-

JUDGE

PMR