Writ jurisdiction cannot usually displace SARFAESI remedies, and a confirmed auction sale cannot be reopened absent fraud or natural justice breach.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked against measures taken under the SARFAESI Act when an effective statutory remedy is available, and that rule applies with particular force in bank recovery matters. The recognised exceptions, including lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or other fundamental procedural defects, were not established on the facts. A confirmed auction sale, once registered, created rights in favour of the auction purchaser and could not be reopened at an advanced stage absent fraud or collusion. The High Court's interference with the DRT order was therefore unsustainable, and the statutory remedy had to be pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining and allowing the writ petition under Article 226 when an effective statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act was available and the auction sale had already been confirmed and registered.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act provides a specific remedy against measures taken by the secured creditor and further appeal before the appellate forum. The rule that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists applies with greater force in matters concerning recovery by banks and financial institutions. The recognized exceptions to this rule, including lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental judicial procedure, reliance on repealed provisions, or violation of natural justice, were not made out on the facts. The auction purchaser had acquired rights after confirmation of sale and registration of the sale certificate, and the matter had reached an advanced and irreversible stage. In the absence of fraud or collusion, the confirmed sale could not be reopened merely because the borrower sought restoration of the securitisation application through the writ court.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, and its interference with the DRT order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedy under the SARFAESI framework had to be pursued, and the High Court's writ intervention was set aside in favour of the auction purchaser.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge SARFAESI measures when an effective statutory remedy exists, and a confirmed auction sale cannot be reopened absent fraud, collusion, or a recognized jurisdictional or natural justice exception.

---