Efficacious statutory appeal bars writ interference against a reasoned DRT interim order under SARFAESI.

A writ challenge to a DRT interim order under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because Section 18 provided an efficacious statutory appeal. The Gujarat HC also found that the order was not non-speaking merely because it did not discuss every contention in detail; it contained sufficient reasons for a prima facie stay determination. Grievances about the merits of the securitisation proceedings were matters for the statutory appeal, not for Article 226 or 227 interference. In the absence of exceptional circumstances such as a clear breach of natural justice or a total absence of reasons, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging an interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 18, and whether alleged absence of adequate reasons or breach of natural justice justified interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The petition assailed an interim order passed in proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that Section 18 provided an efficacious statutory remedy against the Tribunal's order. It further held that the impugned order could not be treated as a non-speaking order merely because it did not discuss every contention in detail. The Tribunal had considered the application for stay and recorded reasons sufficient for a prima facie determination. The grievances raised by the petitioner were found to go to the merits of the main securitisation application and were therefore more appropriately examinable in an appeal under Section 18. The Court declined to invoke writ jurisdiction in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as a clear breach of natural justice or total lack of reasons.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative efficacious remedy was available, and no case for interference under Article 226 or Article 227 was made out. The challenge to the Tribunal's interim order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked against a reasoned interim order unless a clear jurisdictional error or real breach of natural justice is shown.

---