TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at as per Balance Confirmation communication (Annexure P/11) issued from the Central Bank of India, Branch - Radhikanagar, the petitioner who is the guarantor is liable for payment of guarantee dated 11.03.2015 to the extend of Rs. 13,30,000/-, whereas the Central Bank of India has issued notice (Annexure P/11) by which it has exceeded its jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, under Section 1(4) which explicitly mandates minimum pecuniary threshold of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction / authority to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner as it is below its pecuniary limit. 3. He would further submit that the Central Bank of India has preferred an application bearing O.A. No.684/2025 (Annexure P/9) against one R.S. Enterprises (borrower), through its Proprietor, Subhash Chand Jain and his wife, Basanti Bai Jain (guarantor), wherein it has mentioned in para No.3 that the claim in respect of amount due from the defendants exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/-. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that by the notice (Annexure P/11) issued on 12.09.2017 it is quite clear that the petitioner is a guarantor to the extend of Rs. 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s public interest dictates and equity projects. Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest." 10. It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not. It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e view taken by this Court has been followed in Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank. 25. In State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., this Court was considering an appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution staying further proceedings at the stage of SARFAESI RDB Act Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. After considering various judgments rendered by this Court, the Court observed thus : (SCC p. 94, para 16) "16. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter-affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference." 26. The same position was again reiterated by this Court in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir. 27. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. *** 41. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the High Courts of the following words of this Court in Satyawati Tondon since we have come across various matters wherein the High Courts have been entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy : (SCC p. 128, para 55) "55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1209. of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self- imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition ....