SRI Y R LOKESH vs FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23825 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI Y R LOKESH
S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEAWRS
R/AT NO. 1046, ANNAYAPPA BUILDING
NEW STREET, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN
BENGALURU 560 064
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
CIN NO. U65910KL19959PLC008910
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
KANAKIA WALL STREET,
A-WING, 5TH FLOOR
UNIT NO. 511 AND 512
ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,
CHAKAFA, ANDHERI (EAST)
MUMBAI 400 093
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHOIZED OFFICER/BRANCH MANAGER
AND ALSO REG BRANCH OFFICE
FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
FEDERAL TOWERS,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
AUVA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA 683101
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 24.07.2020, ISSUED
AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN
SL.NO.23 IS CONCERN, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK,
AS PER ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the Possession Notice dated 24.07.2020 issued by the
respondent-Bank. The petitioner has consequently sought
a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to
exclude the schedule property belonging to the petitioner
from the purview of the said Possession Notice and to
forbear from taking further measures in respect thereof.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
The petitioner has also sought a direction to the
respondent-Bank to first proceed against and sell nine
flats, stated to be valued at approximately Rs.7 crores,
which, according to the petitioner, are already in the
physical possession of the Bank.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Bank. Perused the records and the grounds
urged in the writ petition.
3. The undisputed position is that the respondent-
Bank has initiated measures for recovery of the amounts
due from the builder/borrower, who had mortgaged the
subject property in favour of the Bank as security for the
loan facility availed by him. Consequently, the security
interest created in favour of the respondent-Bank extends
to the secured asset in accordance with the terms of the
mortgage and the measures permissible under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the
SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner, merely by asserting an
independent or third-party interest in the property, cannot
seek to interdict the measures initiated by the secured
creditor in exercise of its statutory remedies. At the same
time, it is well settled that a person aggrieved by
measures taken by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI
Act is entitled to question such measures before the
competent forum in accordance with law.
4. The principal issue, therefore, is whether this
Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The
law on the subject is no longer res integra . The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that ordinarily,
measures taken by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI
Act ought not to be interfered with in exercise of writ
jurisdiction, particularly when the statute provides an
efficacious and comprehensive remedy before the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act. The existence of such statutory remedy
is a significant consideration governing the exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
5. The rule of self-restraint, however, is not an
absolute bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Interference may be warranted in exceptional
circumstances, such as where there is a patent lack of
jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, or
infringement of fundamental rights. In the present case,
no such exceptional circumstance is made out. The
grievance raised by the petitioner essentially concerns the
validity and manner of the measures undertaken by the
respondent-Bank in enforcement of its security interest.
Such questions are matters which can appropriately be
examined by the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal
upon the petitioner availing the statutory remedy.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
6. The further prayer of the petitioner that the
respondent-Bank be directed to first proceed against the
nine flats allegedly in its physical possession and
thereafter against the schedule property also involves an
examination of the nature and extent of the security
interest, the rights of the parties, the manner in which the
secured creditor is entitled to enforce its security and the
factual circumstances attending the recovery proceedings.
This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction,
would not undertake such an adjudication when the
statute has specifically provided an efficacious remedy
before the competent Tribunal. In that view of the matter,
this Court finds no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
dismissed
The writ petition is, accordingly,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory
remedy available before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery
Tribunal, in accordance with law, if so advised.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55020
WP No. 23825 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010551832022
All contentions of the parties are left open to be
urged before the competent forum.
No opinion is expressed on the merits of the rival
claims.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18