Writ jurisdiction and SARFAESI remedies: statutory duties may be enforced against private bodies, but appellate restraint can still apply.

Writ jurisdiction may extend to enforcing statutory duties even where the respondent is a private bank, because the public law nature of the complaint and the supervisory reach over statutory tribunals remain relevant; the earlier view of absolute non-maintainability was too broad. An agreement of sale executed during SARFAESI measures was also treated as governed by a prior inter partes determination, which could not be reopened between the same parties; that conclusion treating the transaction as void under section 13(13) was therefore reviewed. By contrast, requiring recourse to the statutory appeal was upheld, because an alternative remedy under the recovery framework ordinarily warrants judicial restraint and the pre-deposit condition did not make the appeal inefficacious.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition was maintainable against a private bank or against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the facts of the case; (ii) whether an agreement of sale executed during pendency of SARFAESI measures was invalid under section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act; (iii) whether the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable against a private bank or against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the facts of the case.

Analysis: A private bank is not State within Article 12, but writ jurisdiction is not excluded merely because the respondent is a private body if the complaint concerns breach of a statutory obligation. The distinction between private law functions and public law functions is material. Further, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a statutory tribunal discharging adjudicatory functions, and certiorari can lie against its orders where jurisdictional error or illegality is shown. Mandamus may also issue to enforce statutory duties. The earlier view that writ jurisdiction was wholly unavailable against the bank was therefore too broad.

Conclusion: The earlier conclusion on absolute non-maintainability required review and was not sustainable in its entirety.

Issue (ii): Whether an agreement of sale executed during pendency of SARFAESI measures was invalid under section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: The point had already been decided inter partes in earlier proceedings between the same parties. A prior binding decision on the same issue cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. The later Bench ought not to have re-examined and contradicted that earlier determination.

Conclusion: The conclusion treating the agreement and consequent sale as void under section 13(13) was liable to be reviewed and set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Though the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction, the rule of self-imposed restraint applies with greater force in matters arising under recovery statutes. Section 18 creates an appellate remedy, and the pre-deposit requirement does not by itself make that remedy inefficacious. The choice to relegate the petitioners to the appellate forum was a possible view and did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to review the refusal to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The review succeeded only to the extent that the conclusions on maintainability against the private bank and on section 13(13) were corrected, but the challenge to the insistence on the statutory appellate remedy did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction may extend to enforcement of statutory duties even against a private body, but a prior inter partes determination on the same legal issue binds the parties, and the existence of an efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily justifies judicial restraint.

---