Writ interference in SARFAESI proceedings declined where statutory remedies existed, laches was shown, and pre-pack relief was unavailable.

A writ court will ordinarily decline interference in SARFAESI proceedings where the borrower has an efficacious statutory remedy and has been guilty of laches. The court noted that the petitioner had not completed the bank's restructuring steps under the RBI resolution framework, so no direction could issue to compel extension of that process. It also held that the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process was unavailable because it applies only to a corporate applicant, while the petitioner was a proprietorship firm. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable, and no interference with the pending SARFAESI measures was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction to the bank to extend the RBI resolution framework and the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process instead of proceeding under SARFAESI. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of laches and the availability of statutory remedies under SARFAESI.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction to the bank to extend the RBI resolution framework and the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process instead of proceeding under SARFAESI.

Analysis: The RBI framework was invoked by the bank through correspondence requiring the petitioner to comply with the steps necessary for restructuring, but the petitioner did not act further to complete the process. The claim for pre-packaged insolvency resolution also failed because that mechanism applies to a corporate applicant, while the petitioner was a proprietorship firm and therefore outside the statutory definition.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the sought direction and the claim to invoke the insolvency resolution process was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of laches and the availability of statutory remedies under SARFAESI.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner had not shown diligence in pursuing the bank-side restructuring process and had approached the writ court while SARFAESI proceedings were pending. It reiterated that SARFAESI is a complete code with efficacious remedies and that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked in financial recovery matters absent recognized exceptions.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and no interference with the SARFAESI proceedings was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected on merits and on the ground that the petitioner could not overcome the statutory bar and equitable limitations on writ intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily decline interference in SARFAESI proceedings where the borrower has an efficacious statutory remedy and has been guilty of laches, and a pre-packaged insolvency process cannot be invoked by an entity that is not a corporate applicant.

---