Mrs. Subha Pattanshetti v. The Bank of Baroda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 25984 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:

¶1MRS. SUBHA PATTANSHETTI, W/O SHIVARAJ PATTANSHETTI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.688, 8TH B MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶2M/S TRONIX SOLUTIONS, NO.20/3, 80 FEET ROAD, KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU.

¶3MR. SHAILESH V. PATTANASHETTI, S/O MR. SHIVARAJ PATTANSHETTI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.688, 8TH B MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHESHA KARTHIK M REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE BANK OF BARODA MAYOHALL BRANCH, P.B.NO.5118, GROUND FLOOR,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Shesha Karthik M.Reddy, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for caveator / respondent appeared in person.

¶2This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) Set aside the order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the Court of the XXIV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.9332/2025, in the interest of justice and equity.

(ii) Pass such other order, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

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

¶4Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.9332/2025 and the Court vide order dated:04.03.2026 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. The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum if so advised and if the law permits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

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.: 18