Alternate statutory remedy bars writ interference in SARFAESI matters unless exceptional grounds justify departure.

Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised against SARFAESI notices where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the Act. Applying the rule of self-imposed restraint, the High Court noted that the petitioner had already invoked the statutory mechanism before the Tribunal and had an appeal remedy under Section 18, with no pleaded exceptional ground such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the SARFAESI notices was maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available under the Act.

Analysis: The petitioner had already invoked the statutory mechanism before the Tribunal and the impugned action was traceable to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Court applied the settled rule of self-imposed restraint that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be exercised where an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy exists, unless exceptional grounds such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires are shown. Since the petitioner had an appeal available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and had not challenged the Tribunal's order, the writ petition sought to bypass the statutory hierarchy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that the High Court will ordinarily decline writ interference in SARFAESI matters when the statute provides an effective appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be entertained where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances justify departure from that rule.

---