Special recovery remedies can run alongside debt recovery proceedings, and writ courts will not restructure loan repayment terms.

A special recovery statute may operate as an additional remedy even when debt recovery proceedings are already pending under the general recovery law, so pending tribunal proceedings do not by themselves bar recourse to section 13(2). The writ court also will not direct instalments or a one-time settlement, because restructuring a loan lies within the lender's commercial discretion unless a clear legal infirmity is shown. The practical effect is that parallel recovery mechanisms can coexist, and writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for creditor-led loan rescheduling.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether action under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could be challenged on the ground that recovery proceedings were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. (ii) Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could direct instalments or a one-time settlement in the loan account.

Issue (i): Whether action under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could be challenged on the ground that recovery proceedings were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The Securitisation Act was treated as a special enactment intended to provide an additional mode of recovery. Pending proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not exclude recourse to section 13(2). The court accepted that the special statute would prevail over the general recovery remedy and that parallel remedies could coexist.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the notice under section 13(2) was upheld in favour of the Bank.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could direct instalments or a one-time settlement in the loan account.

Analysis: Fixation of instalments or grant of a one-time settlement would amount to rescheduling the loan, which lay within the domain of the lending financial institution or bank. The writ court declined to substitute its discretion for that of the creditor in the absence of any demonstrated legal infirmity.

Conclusion: No such relief could be granted in writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged, and the impugned recovery action was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A special recovery statute may be invoked as an additional remedy notwithstanding pending proceedings under the general debt recovery law, and writ jurisdiction will not be used to restructure a loan or interfere absent a clear legal error.

---