Writ Petitions Against SARFAESI Actions Are Inadmissible Given Statutory Bar and Efficacious Remedy Under Section 17.

The appellants and private Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are siblings involved in a pending Title Partition Suit (No. 284 of 2010/2016) regarding joint family properties in Patna and New Delhi

Despite an ad-interim injunction issued by the High Court in 2018/2019 restraining alienation or encumbrance of the property, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 allegedly mutated and mortgaged the ancestral property to Axis Bank

Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna, issued an order on 04.04.2026 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to take possession of the property

The appellants filed a Writ Petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8228 of 2026) to set aside this order, which was disposed of by a Single Judge on 17.06.2026 with the consent of both parties, directing the appellants to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)

The appellants moved this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) seeking a stay against coercive measures

1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings when an alternative statutory remedy exists under the Act.

2. Whether the Court can grant an injunction against Bank recovery actions in light of the statutory bar under the SARFAESI Act.

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which provides a right of appeal/redressal to any person (including third parties) aggrieved by measures taken by a secured creditor

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which expressly bars Civil Courts from granting injunctions in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred under the Act or the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge correctly declined to entertain the Writ Petition because Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act offers an "alternative and efficacious remedy" to the appellants, even as third parties to the mortgage

The Division Bench emphasized that the original Writ Petition was disposed of "with the consent of both the counsels," precluding the appellants from challenging that decision now

Regarding the prayer for a stay, the Court held that Section 34 of the Act creates a statutory bar against courts granting injunctions on SARFAESI actions

The Court concluded that the factual dispute regarding the breach of a previous civil injunction by the siblings and the subsequent mortgage must be adjudicated by the specialized tribunal (DRT) rather than through writ jurisdiction

The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and the stay application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026), declining to grant any injunctive relief... Directives were issued granting the appellants liberty to approach the DRT within thirty days from the date of the judgment's uploading