Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Source reference: para. 1The petitioner contended that he was neither the borrower nor the guarantor of the subject property and asserted title based on a prior court decree.
Source reference: para. 1He argued that the recovery proceedings abated following the death of the original mortgagor.
Source reference: para. 1Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act.
Source reference: para. 6Law Applied
The court relied on the principle of "alternative remedy," particularly the heightened rigour applied to financial recoveries involving public money and bank dues.
Source reference: para. 3United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010), which establishes that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain Article 226 petitions if an effective statutory remedy exists.
Source reference: para. 3Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd. (2024) and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank Ors. (2024), which mandate that aggrieved parties must exhaust remedies under the SARFAESI Act before approaching the High Court.
Source reference: para. 4-5Reasoning
The Court observed that the disputes raised by the petitioner fell under the regulatory framework of the SARFAESI Act, which constitutes a "code unto itself" with comprehensive procedures for redressal.
Source reference: para. 3By applying the doctrine established in Satyawati Tondon, the Court determined that because the legislature provided a specific quasi-judicial forum for banking disputes, the petitioner must first utilize that statutory path rather than invoking the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Source reference: para. 3, 6The Court noted that the availability of this effective alternative rendered the present writ petition non-maintainable at this stage.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy.
The petition and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, with the petitioner granted liberty to approach the appropriate statutory forum, and a direction to consider the aspect of limitation regarding the delay.
Source reference: para. 6, 7-8Original Court PDF
Mritunjay KumarvsThe Union of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in