Statutory appeal remedy bars writ challenge to recovery sale confirmation and possession notice absent a clear jurisdictional defect.

Where a Recovery Officer's order confirming sale and possession notice is challenged, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised if Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides an effective appeal and the underlying DRT judgment and award have attained finality. The High Court found no exceptional ground to bypass the statutory remedy, and the recovery proceedings were treated as consequential to the final tribunal order. The plea of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was rejected because no extension of moratorium was shown and no clear subsisting jurisdictional defect was established. The writ petition was held not maintainable, leaving the recovery proceedings undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Recovery Officer's order confirming sale and consequential possession notice was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and whether the recovery proceedings were jurisdiction because of the pending insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only against the Recovery Officer's order and possession notice, while the judgment and award of the Debt Recovery Tribunal had not been challenged and had attained finality. The statutory remedy under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provided an appeal against the Recovery Officer's order, and the Court found no exceptional ground to bypass that remedy. The plea based on moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was rejected because no order extending the moratorium was shown, and the recovery proceedings were consequential to the final DRT order. The Court held that the cited precedents did not assist the petitioners on the facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable, and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were left undisturbed in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal remedy if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: When an effective statutory appeal lies against a Recovery Officer's order, and the foundational tribunal order has attained finality, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised merely on a plea of lack of jurisdiction unless a clear and subsisting jurisdictional defect is demonstrated.

---