Article 226 will not usually stop SARFAESI recovery where prolonged default and no public law element justify bank action.

Article 226 interference was declined against SARFAESI recovery measures where the borrowers had remained in prolonged default, the account had been classified as a non-performing asset, and the bank had already taken statutory measures under Section 13 after issuing demand notice. The Court treated the writ remedy as discretionary, noted that repeated ities to regularise the account had been given, and found no satisfactory explanation for the default or basis to compel acceptance of one-time settlement terms. As the loan transaction was a private financial arrangement without an enforceable public law element, the challenge to the proposed sale of the secured asset was rejected and the bank was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the bank's measures under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002, including the proposed sale of the secured asset.

Analysis: The borrowers had defaulted in repayment for a substantial period, the account had been classified as a non-performing asset, and the bank had already taken measures under Section 13 of the Act after issuing the statutory demand notice. The Court noted that the bank had afforded repeated opportunities to clear the liability, that the offer of one-time settlement was not acceptable, and that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the prolonged default. It further held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and that the loan transaction was a private financial arrangement without any enforceable public law element warranting interference.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the SARFAESI measures and proposed sale was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, and the bank was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a public law element or an enforceable right, the High Court will not interfere under Article 226 with SARFAESI recovery measures when the borrower has defaulted and statutory opportunities to cure the default have not been availed.

---