AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Smt.Kavitha.D., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person.
Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, it is heard.
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
a)Issue a writ of Certiorari, by quashing the Section 14 order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026, vide Annexure-G, as the same has been obtained by the respondent Bank on the basis of incorrect and misleading and in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
b)Direct the respondent No.1 Company not to interfere with or dispossess the Petitioners from their respective portions of the Schedule Premises pursuant to the Section 14 order dated 06.05.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 vide Annexure-G, pending disposal of Diary No.2530/2026 before the Hon'ble DRT-I, Bengaluru vide Annexure-L.
c)Direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to refund the respective security deposits received from the petitioners under the Lease Agreements, to enable the petitioners to secure alternative accommodation vide Annexure-J.
d)Pending such refund and enabling the petitioners to secure alternative accommodation, direct respondent No.1 company not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioners from their respective portions of the schedule premises.
e)Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant, including cost of the case, in the view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity.
Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
Suffice it to note that the first respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.684/2026 and the Court vide order dated:06.05.2026 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 the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits.
Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.