High Courts should ordinarily decline Article 226 petitions where SARFAESI provides an effective statutory remedy.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Vishwa Fashion and General Store, obtained loan facilities from Canara Bank in 2020, secured by a mortgage of his dwelling house.

After the accounts were classified as non-performing assets, the Bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and proceeded to take possession of the secured property.

The petitioner’s challenge before the DRT was dismissed; he later sought restoration of possession through this writ petition, alleging procedural irregularities and offering to repay the dues.

During the proceedings, an auction purchaser stated that the auction held on 24 February 2025 had been confirmed and that the full bid amount had been paid.

The Bank raised the objection that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition under Article 226 when an effective statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioner.

2. Whether the Court should determine the petitioner’s challenges to the Bank’s possession and auction measures in this writ petition.

Article 226 relief is ordinarily declined where an effective statutory alternative remedy is available.

The Supreme Court has emphasised that this rule applies with particular force to proceedings for recovery of bank dues and measures under the SARFAESI Act: United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110.

The Court also relied on State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, concerning restraint in granting writ relief against SARFAESI recovery measures.

PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 5179, and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 1, which reiterate the rule against entertaining a writ petition where an effective SARFAESI remedy exists.

The petitioner challenged measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, including possession of the secured property and the subsequent auction.

The Court treated the availability of an effective statutory remedy as decisive and applied the Supreme Court’s direction that High Courts ordinarily require parties to pursue remedies under the relevant statute before invoking Article 226, particularly in bank-recovery matters.

It therefore declined to examine the merits of the petitioner’s allegations or the auction purchaser’s claims.

Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.