Writ remedy and statutory appeal under SARFAESI: High Court reiterates that writ jurisdiction should not bypass an efficacious appellate remedy.

The Chief Justice's power to constitute Benches and allocate judicial work is part of roster control, and a Single Judge may request consideration by a larger Bench when earlier precedent appears to require review; the reference and Special Bench constitution were therefore competent. Under the SARFAESI Act, a writ petition is not ordinarily maintainable against a Debts Recovery Tribunal order under Section 17 where an appeal under Section 18 is available, because the statute provides a complete appellate mechanism and writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass an efficacious remedy except in recognised exceptional cases. The earlier contrary view was treated as per incuriam, and the matter was remitted for initial consideration of maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference made by the learned Single Judge and the constitution of the Special Bench by the Chief Justice were competent. (ii) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 when an appeal remedy is available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the reference made by the learned Single Judge and the constitution of the Special Bench by the Chief Justice were competent.

Analysis: The power of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches and allocate judicial work is a matter of roster and discretion. A learned Single Judge who considers that an earlier Division Bench view requires reconsideration may place the papers before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 does not curtail that prerogative in the manner suggested, and the reference was made in accordance with settled judicial practice and propriety.

Conclusion: The reference was competent and the Special Bench was validly constituted.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 when an appeal remedy is available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: The SARFAESI framework provides a complete mechanism for enforcement of security interest, challenge to measures taken under Section 13(4), and further appeal under Section 18. The Supreme Court authorities relied upon emphasise that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not to be invoked as a routine alternative to the statutory appellate remedy, particularly where the remedy is efficacious and the statute contains specific safeguards. The earlier Division Bench view treating writ relief as maintainable despite the statutory appeal was held not to be in consonance with binding precedent and was declared per incuriam.

Conclusion: A writ petition against an order of the Tribunal under Section 17 is ordinarily not maintainable when the statutory appeal under Section 18 is available, save in recognised exceptional situations.

Final Conclusion: The legal position was settled against routine bypass of the statutory appellate remedy under the SARFAESI Act, and the matter was sent back for consideration of entertainability in the first instance by the learned Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates an efficacious appellate remedy against a Tribunal order, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to bypass that remedy, except in established exceptional circumstances.

---