Karnataka High Court
WA/1625/2026 of SRI AYUB ALI Vs THE CANARA BANK on 27 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010424092026 NC: 2026:KHC:46102-DB WA No. 1625 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1625 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.1625 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI AYUB ALI
S/O SYED MUNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
R/AT NO.12, PARVATHIPURA,
2ND CROSS HOSKOTE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-562114.
2.
MOHSEEN UNNISA
W/O AYUB ALI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.12, PARVATHIPURA,
2ND CROSS HOSKOTE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-562114.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHREEDHARA G.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANTHOSH V.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CANARA BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
CORPORATE OFFICE: ARM BRANCH,
NEW EXTENSION NEAR ITO,
Digitally signed
by
MAHALAKSHMI
B M
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE,
KOLAR TOWN,
KOLAR-563101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAY BHAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO W.P.NO.4859/2026; SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 12.06.2026 MADE IN W.P.NO.4859/2026 PASSED BY
HON'BLE COURT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.4859/2026 (GM-DRT). The appellants had filed said petition, impugning a possession notice dated 10.07.2025 issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act]. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the petition on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy.
HC-KAR
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the impugned order on two grounds. First, it is stated that the learned Single Judge had ignored the interim order dated 28.04.2026, whereby the learned Single Judge had granted interim order subject to the appellants depositing a sum of `20,00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants deposited a sum of `10,00,000/- on 11.06.2026.
3. Secondly, it is stated that the appellants had not received a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, and therefore, there was no occasion to challenge the same.
4. Concededly, the appellants have received the possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. The said notice is an appealable measure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in a number of decisions, including United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others1 and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and Others2 held that writ petitions against orders passed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act where 1 (2010) 8 SCC 110 2 (2024) 6 SCC 579
HC-KAR
remedies are available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the appellate tribunal, are not to be entertained.
5. In view of the above, we find no grounds to fault the decision of the learned Single Judge in declining to entertain the petition on the ground of alternate remedy.
6. Considering that the appellants had deposited a sum of `10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court pursuant to the interim order, the same is liable to be refunded to the appellants. Accordingly, we direct the registry to do so forthwith.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22