Judicial Restraint in SARFAESI Cases: Navigating Alternative Remedies and Writ Jurisdiction

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilable to the aggrieved party. Arguments Presented The appellant, an auction purchaser, contended that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the borrower when an efficacious alternative remedy of a statutory appeal was available under the SARFAESI Act. The appellant relied on several Supreme Court judgments that have consistently held that the High Court should ordinarily not entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available, particularly in matters involving recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions. The appellant further argued that the conduct of the borrower disentitled him to equitable relief, as the writ petition was filed after the entire ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wledging that non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of self-restraint, the Court clarified that there are certain exceptions carved out by its judgments, such as when the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment, acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, invoked repealed provisions, or passed an order in total violation of principles of natural justice. However, the present case did not fall under any of these exceptions. Analysis of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court's judgment reaffirms the well-established principle that the High Court should exercise restraint in entertaining petitions und....