Chandradhara Rice Mill Vs Union Bank of India (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court, Division Bench, dismissed an appeal filed by Chandradhara Rice Mill against the Single Judge’s refusal to entertain its writ petition challenging recovery proceedings initiated by Union Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The appellant, claiming to be a small enterprise covered by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, admitted default in repayment of its bank facilities but contended that the bank could not initiate SARFAESI proceedings without first following the rehabilitation guidelines referred to in the notification dated 29 May 2015. After classifying the account as a Non-Performing Asset, the bank issued a demand notice dated 29 April 2023 under Section 13(2), followed by a possession notice dated 6 September 2023 under Section 13(4), and initiated proceedings for possession of the mortgaged properties. The Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition because certain issues required factual examination and the borrower had an alternative statutory remedy.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacked jurisdiction because its challenge concerned the bank’s entitlement to invoke the SARFAESI Act itself, rather than the legality of measures taken under that Act. Rejecting this contention, the High Court examined Section 17(1) and held that any person aggrieved by measures taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) could approach the DRT. Since the appellant’s grievance arose entirely from the bank’s SARFAESI measures, the DRT had jurisdiction to entertain its challenge. The Court found no error in the Single Judge’s decision requiring the appellant to pursue its alternative remedies and dismissed the writ appeal. The Division Bench did not adjudicate whether the bank had complied with the MSME rehabilitation guidelines or determine the substantive validity of the recovery measures.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The appellant has filed an appeal impugning an order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.24937/2025 [GM-DRT]. The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1- Union Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’] under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’].
2. It is the appellant’s case that it is a Small Enterprise and is covered within the scope of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as ‘MSMED Act’]. The appellant admits that it has failed to discharge its repayment obligations to the Bank in respect of financial facility extended to it. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is in default, it states that no action under the SARFAESI Act could be initiated as the Bank is required to follow the guidelines stipulated in the notification dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India and permit measures for rehabilitating the appellant. It is contented that only if such measures fail that the Bank could take recourse to the SARFAESI Act for enforcement of its security interest.
3. The account of the appellant was declared as a Non Performing Asset [NPA] and the Bank had issued notice dated 29.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The same was followed by a possession notice dated 06.09.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Bank had also filed an application before the concerned Court for taking over possession of the properties mortgaged to the Bank.
4. As noted above, the said proceedings were challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition. Although the learned Single Judge has made certain observations in favour of the appellant, the writ petition was not entertained on the ground that some of the issues required a factual enquiry and therefore, the petitioner must necessarily avail its alternate remedies.
5. In view of the above, the only question that falls for consideration of this Court is ‘whether the impugned order can be faulted on the ground that the appellant does not have any alternate remedy and it was apposite for the Court to entertain the petition?’
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it does not have any alternate remedy and cannot file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal [hereinafter referred to ‘DRT‘] under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. He submits that the power of the DRT to entertain a petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is confined to only matters that arise out of the SARFAESI Act. He submits that it is the petitioner’s case that no action could be taken under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the subject matter of dispute would be outside the jurisdiction of the DRT. Sub -section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is set out below:
17. [Application against measures to recover secured debts].–(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:
[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]
[Explanation. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17.]
[(1A) An application under sub-section
(1) shall be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises;
(b) where the secured asset is located; or
(c) the branch or any other office of a bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.]
7. It is clear from the plain language of Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act that any person aggrieved can move an application before the DRT in respect to any measures taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance stems entirely from the measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act.
8. In this view, we find no merit in the contention that the DRT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application against the measures instituted by the Bank. We find no grounds to fault the decision of the learned Single Judge in relegating the petitioner to avail its alternate remedies.
9. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
