Alternative statutory remedy under SARFAESI bars writ relief despite pre-deposit, with appellate forum to be pursued first.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226. The existence of a pre-deposit requirement in the appellate remedy does not, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism. In recovery matters involving banks and financial institutions, the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy applies with greater rigour, and writ jurisdiction is reserved for rare cases. The challenge was therefore required to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and whether the requirement of pre-deposit justified invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act was available against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The statutory scheme of the SARFAESI Act provides a complete code with remedies at different stages, and the existence of a pre-deposit condition does not by itself justify bypassing the appellate mechanism. In matters involving recovery by banks and financial institutions, the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy applies with greater rigour, and writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked except in rare cases.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was not to be entertained in the facts of the case, and the challenge was required to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 merely because the appellate remedy involves a pre-deposit requirement.

---