- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 10779 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. BESTOOL MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY BABULAL M. SHIRADHANA, OFFICE AT NO.40, MUTHACHARI INDUSTRAIL ESTATE, MYSORE ROAD, NAYANDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039. 2. SRI. BABULAL M. SHIRADHANA, SON OF MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.307, Digitally signed by SRI. RAVI ENCLAVE,PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH SAPTTHAGIRI RESIDENCY, COURT OF KARNATAKA MUTHURAYANNA BENGALURU VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BENGALURU-560056. 3. SRI. MADANLAL SHIRADHANA, SON OF BAGHU RAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.656, 10TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR RPC LAYOUT BUS STAND, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGARA, BENGALURU-560104. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 4. SMT. KASTURI DEVI, WIFE OF MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.656, 10TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR RPC LAYOUT BUS STAND, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGARA, BENGALURU-560104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATISH CHANDRA R., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 22, 3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, ASHOK NAGARA, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR D. PATIL …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 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.Satish Chandra, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.Lakshminarayana, counsel for respondent appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by Hon'ble 46th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Cri.Misc.No.1208/2025 dated 24.03.2025 by permitting the respondent in taking the physical possession of the secured asset with help of jurisdictional police by breaking opening the lock by drawing the necessary panchanama is produced at Annexure-A. (b) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.1208/2025 and the Court vide order dated:24.03.2025 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025

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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary 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 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.: 31

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 10779 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. BESTOOL MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY BABULAL M. SHIRADHANA, OFFICE AT NO.40, MUTHACHARI INDUSTRAIL ESTATE, MYSORE ROAD, NAYANDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039. 2. SRI. BABULAL M. SHIRADHANA, SON OF MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.307, Digitally signed by SRI. RAVI ENCLAVE,PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH SAPTTHAGIRI RESIDENCY, COURT OF KARNATAKA MUTHURAYANNA BENGALURU VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BENGALURU-560056. 3. SRI. MADANLAL SHIRADHANA, SON OF BAGHU RAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.656, 10TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR RPC LAYOUT BUS STAND, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGARA, BENGALURU-560104. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 4. SMT. KASTURI DEVI, WIFE OF MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.656, 10TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR RPC LAYOUT BUS STAND, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGARA, BENGALURU-560104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATISH CHANDRA R., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 22, 3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, ASHOK NAGARA, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR D. PATIL …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 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.Satish Chandra, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.Lakshminarayana, counsel for respondent appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by Hon'ble 46th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Cri.Misc.No.1208/2025 dated 24.03.2025 by permitting the respondent in taking the physical possession of the secured asset with help of jurisdictional police by breaking opening the lock by drawing the necessary panchanama is produced at Annexure-A. (b) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the Bank had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.1208/2025 and the Court vide order dated:24.03.2025 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025

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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41860 WP No. 10779 of 2025 CNR: KAHC010236112025 discretion in such matters with great caution, care and circumspection. Hence, I decline to exercise discretionary 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 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.: 31