SARFAESI writ maintainability and personal guarantor liability after resolution plan approval remain limited by statutory remedies.

Writ jurisdiction was held ordinarily unavailable against SARFAESI measures where an effective statutory remedy was already pending before the DRT, so the petition was not entertained. The Court also stated that approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not by itself discharge a personal guarantor, because the guarantor's liability flows from an independent contract and may survive corporate insolvency proceedings. On that basis, the bank's SARFAESI action was not barred, and the guarantor's liability remained to be determined under the relevant contractual and statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the SARFAESI measures when an efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act was already available and pending before the DRT; (ii) whether approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code discharged the personal guarantor and barred the bank from proceeding against the guarantor and the secured asset.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the SARFAESI measures when an efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act was already available and pending before the DRT.

Analysis: The petitioner's challenge to the bank's action under the SARFAESI Act was already the subject of proceedings before the DRT. In matters arising under the SARFAESI regime, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked where the statute itself provides an effective remedy. The existence of the pending statutory remedy weighed against entertainment of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code discharged the personal guarantor and barred the bank from proceeding against the guarantor and the secured asset.

Analysis: Approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto extinguish the liability of a personal guarantor. The guarantor's liability arises from an independent contract and survives even where the corporate debtor is dealt with through insolvency proceedings. The Court also noted that if the resolution plan was contravened, the statutory consequence lay within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code itself, including the remedy of liquidation, and that the extent of liability of the guarantor would be determined by the relevant contractual arrangement before the proper forum.

Conclusion: The resolution plan did not discharge the guarantor, and the bank's SARFAESI action was not barred on this ground; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere because the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy and, in any event, approval of the resolution plan did not absolve the personal guarantor from liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval of a resolution plan does not by itself discharge a personal guarantor, and a writ petition challenging SARFAESI action will not ordinarily be entertained where an effective statutory remedy is available.

---