High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal by Hospital and Proprietor Against ARCIL in SARFAESI Act Matter — Upholds Single Judge's Order Dismissing Writ Petitions as Not Maintainable. The Court held that the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is an efficacious alternative remedy and the writ petition was not maintainable.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 15:21:52

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, M/S Sridevi Hospital and its proprietor Dr. K. Senthilnathan, filed a writ appeal against a common order dated 20.12.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.28962/2015 and connected matters. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging a possession notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) by the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL), the first respondent. The appellants had also impleaded the Senior Sub-Registrar, District Registrar, Principal Secretary of Revenue, Indian Overseas Bank, and Smt. Devi as respondents. The core legal issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants argued that the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate for respondents 2 to 4, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Division Bench, after hearing the matter, held that the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is an efficacious alternative remedy and the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order. The decision was pronounced on 18.12.2025 by a bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Section 17, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) - The appellants challenged a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is an efficacious alternative remedy. The Division Bench upheld the order, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy. (Paras 1-5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the possession notice under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Final Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Law Points

Alternative remedy
Maintainability of writ petition
SARFAESI Act Section 17
Efficacious remedy

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 49

Writ Appeal No. 310 of 2025 (GM-RES)

2025-12-18

Vibhu Bakhru, C.J., C.M. Poonacha, J.

Sri R. Sameer Ahmed for Sri Mahadevasetty for appellants; Smt. Namitha Mahesh, AGA for respondents 2 to 4

M/S Sridevi Hospital and Dr. K. Senthilnathan

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL), Senior Sub-Registrar, District Registrar, Principal Secretary of Revenue, Indian Overseas Bank, Smt. Devi

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petitions challenging possession notice under SARFAESI Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the common order of the Single Judge and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the first respondent.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the possession notice issued under SARFAESI Act by ARCIL.

Previous Decisions

Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.28962/2015 and connected matters on 20.12.2024, holding that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of alternative remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

Issues

Whether the writ petition challenging the possession notice under SARFAESI Act is maintainable in view of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the writ petition was maintainable despite alternative remedy. Respondents (State) contended that the writ petition was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is an efficacious alternative remedy, and therefore, a writ petition challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning a common order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.28962/2015 (GM-RES), which was clubbed along with W.P.No.9193/2017 (GM-ST/RN) and W.P.No.9578/2017 (GM-RES). The said petitions were filed by respondent No.1...

Procedural History

The appellants filed W.P.No.28962/2015 and connected matters before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a possession notice under SARFAESI Act. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 20.12.2024. The appellants then filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment, and pronounced on 18.12.2025.