Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass SARFAESI and RDB remedies where the petition is used to obstruct recovery proceedings.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass or duplicate efficacious remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act when the borrower has already invoked the DRT and DRAT mechanisms. A petition challenging measures under sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 was treated as forum shopping and an attempt to obstruct recovery, because it sought overlapping discretionary reliefs in multiple proceedings concerning the same asset. The HC held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it as an abuse of process, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available before the competent fora.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable despite the petitioner having already availed statutory remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and whether the petition was an abuse of process intended to obstruct recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The petition sought to challenge measures taken under sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, while the petitioner had already invoked the statutory mechanism before the DRT and the DRAT. The pendency of those proceedings meant that the writ jurisdiction ought not to be used to secure overlapping discretionary reliefs or to bypass the remedies provided by the special statutes. The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the available remedies, including proceedings before the DRT, appeal to the DRAT, and objections in the bank's proceedings under the RDB Act, and that the writ was filed to prevent possession from being taken rather than to pursue a genuine jurisdictional grievance. The Court also noted the use of multiple proceedings involving the same asset and the same relief, and treated the petition as an attempt at forum shopping and misuse of the court's process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as an abuse of the process of court; the petitioner was left to pursue its statutory remedies before the competent fora.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to circumvent or duplicate efficacious statutory remedies under the SARFAESI and RDB regimes, particularly where the proceedings appear designed to obstruct recovery and amount to abuse of process.

---