Shri K Sanjeev v. Muthoot Homefin India Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 23303 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:

¶1SHRI. K.SANJEEV, S/O. KATTABOMMAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE, GOWTHAMAPURA, BENGALURU-560008.

¶2SMT. L.SOPHIA FLORA, W/O. KATTA BOMMAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.6, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, NEAR PILLE STATUE, GOWTHAMAPURA, HALSURU, BENGALURU-560008.

¶3SMT. VINNY M., D/O. ROBERT MARTIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.15, 1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE, GOWTHAMAPURA, BENGALURU-560008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED HARIS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MUTHOOT HOMEFIN INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, UNIT-70, RSR BUILDING, ABOVE LAXMI VILLAS BANK,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560004. …RESPONDENT

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, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER Sri.Mohammed Haris, counsel for the petitioners appeared in person.

¶2This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Set aside Annexure-A being the order passed by the Hon'ble X Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.50281/2026 dated

27.06.2026 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act, 2002,

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records in Crl.Misc.No.50281/2026 and

(c) Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶3Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶4Suffice it to note that the respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.50281/2026 and the Court vide order dated:

27.06.2026 had allowed the petition. The order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The litigants are not remediless, as the Tribunal has been established specifically to adjudicate the lis.

It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA V/S. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS that the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT and SARFAESI Act and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of the Banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters

with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners may approach appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8