2026 (8) TMI 993

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....marked appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This Court is conscious of the fact that the controversy involved herein is no more res integra and the same is covered by the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 INSC 44, wherein qua the maintainability of such writ petitions it has categorically held that High Courts ought to be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising their discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such financial matters pertaining to financial debt/bank recovery/SARFAESI wherein disputed questions of facts are involved. The relevant extract of Satyawati Tondon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13.08.2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs.1 crore only (in all Rs.3 crores) is absolutely unj....