Writ relief against SARFAESI measures is declined where statutory remedies exist, and IBC moratorium does not cover personal guarantors.

The article explains that a guarantor's writ challenge to SARFAESI recovery measures was not entertained because an effective statutory remedy was available before the DRT or NCLT. It also notes the settled position that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to a personal guarantor. On the separate prayer for a mandamus to compel disposal of a complaint before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the issue had become infructuous because the complaint had already been examined and closed. The proceedings were therefore closed without further adjudication of the underlying insolvency or recovery disputes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the guarantor could maintain a writ challenge to the SARFAESI measures and invoke the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in relation to the corporate debtor's proceedings; (ii) Whether the writ seeking a direction to dispose of the complaint before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India survived for adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the guarantor could maintain a writ challenge to the SARFAESI measures and invoke the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in relation to the corporate debtor's proceedings.

Analysis: The petition concerned a guarantor of the corporate debtor who questioned the bank's action taken after the insolvency process and liquidation proceedings. The governing position was that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to a personal guarantor. The Court also noted that the bank had already proceeded under the SARFAESI framework and that remedies were available before the specialised fora. In these circumstances, the guarantor was left to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the National Company Law Tribunal.

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained in writ jurisdiction and the petitioner was relegated to the alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ seeking a direction to dispose of the complaint before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India survived for adjudication.

Analysis: The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus to compel disposal of the complaint filed before the Board. The record showed that the complaint had already been examined and closed, and the connected insolvency proceedings had also moved to their final stage. In that situation, no live issue remained for a writ of mandamus.

Conclusion: The writ had become infructuous and did not require further adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to grant writ relief, relegated the guarantor to the available statutory forum, and closed the proceedings without adjudicating the merits of the underlying insolvency or recovery disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily entertain a challenge to SARFAESI recovery measures when an effective statutory remedy exists, and the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to a personal guarantor.

---