SARFAESI writ interference barred by alternative DRT remedy absent exceptional grounds or natural justice breach.

Writ interference in SARFAESI recovery proceedings is ordinarily barred where the statute provides an effective remedy before the DRT, and it is confined to exceptional cases such as statutory violation, fundamental procedural irregularity, use of repealed provisions, or breach of natural justice. The challenge here turned on disputed facts about whether the sale deeds were nominal and the mortgage was fraudulent, but those contentions did not establish any exceptional ground for Article 226 intervention. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the Single Judge's dismissal required no interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ appeal challenging SARFAESI recovery steps and sale certificate could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and whether the pleaded dispute concerning the nature of the sale deeds and mortgage presented exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appellants had already invoked the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the dispute raised by them turned on contested facts, namely whether the sale deeds were nominal transactions and whether the mortgage was fraudulent. The governing law restricts writ interference in SARFAESI matters where the statute provides a specific remedial mechanism, and such interference is confined to exceptional cases such as violation of statutory provisions, fundamental procedural irregularity, use of repealed provisions, or breach of natural justice. The pleaded case did not establish any of those exceptional grounds.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the dismissal by the Single Judge called for no interference; the challenge failed.

---