Fresh SARFAESI auctions cannot be sought through writ jurisdiction; the remedy lies before the DRT.

Canara Bank issued a public auction sale notice dated 29.07.2026 for secured assets, fixing the reserve price at ₹19,21,00,000 and the Earnest Money Deposit (“EMD”) at ₹1,92,10,000, being 10% of the reserve price.

The petitioner paid the EMD through electronic transfer into the account allotted to it.

The petitioner alleged that, despite paying the EMD, it was denied access to the web portal and was consequently unable to participate in the auction.

It sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a fresh e-auction and permit the petitioner to map its EMD to the auction and participate in it.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct a fresh e-auction of the secured assets after an auction conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”)

Whether the petitioner’s alleged exclusion from the e-auction entitled it to seek a fresh auction, or whether its remedy was limited to recovery of the EMD and, if legally maintainable, damages before the competent forum

The Court applied the SARFAESI Act, particularly Section 17, under which a borrower or any person aggrieved by measures taken under the Act has a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”).

The Court held that once an auction has been conducted pursuant to SARFAESI proceedings, a writ petition seeking a fresh auction is not maintainable; the statutory remedy before the DRT must be pursued.

In a case involving alleged denial of access to the auction portal, the affected participant may seek return of the EMD and claim damages, if otherwise entitled, before the competent forum.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had paid the stipulated EMD and had alleged that it was unable to participate because portal access was not provided.

However, the alleged procedural irregularity did not confer a right to compel the bank to conduct a fresh auction through a writ of mandamus.

Since the auction had been conducted pursuant to SARFAESI proceedings, the Court held that challenges to the auction process or measures taken under the Act had to be raised before the DRT under Section 17, rather than through the present writ petition.

The petitioner’s claim that the property had not fetched a fair price was insufficient to justify reopening the auction.

Its appropriate relief, in the circumstances alleged, was return of the EMD and a claim for damages, if available, before the competent forum.

The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

The Court clarified that, whether the sale had been concluded or cancelled, the petitioner’s EMD of ₹1,92,10,000, as an unsuccessful bidder, was required to be returned; any claim for damages could be pursued before the competent forum.