Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Prakashbhai Baldevbhai Patel and another, filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court. They sought to quash and set aside an order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) I, Ahmedabad in Securitization Application No. 32 of 2026. The DRT had refused to grant interim relief to the petitioners against the respondent, Canara Bank, which had initiated recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The bank had issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 18.08.2025, followed by a possession notice on 31.01.2026, and took physical possession of the subject property on 14.02.2026. The petitioners challenged these measures as void and without jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The court noted that the DRT's order refusing interim relief was not perverse or without jurisdiction, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 should not be exercised when a statutory appeal is available. The court did not examine the merits of the case and left it open for the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - Availability of Statutory Appeal - The petitioners challenged the DRT's order refusing interim stay of possession under SARFAESI Act. The High Court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was available, the writ petition under Article 226/227 was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition on this ground alone, without examining merits. (Paras 1-18) B) Banking Law - SARFAESI Act - Interim Relief - DRT's Discretion - The DRT had refused to grant interim relief to the petitioners against the bank's possession notice. The High Court found that the DRT's order was not perverse or without jurisdiction, and the petitioners had an alternative remedy. The court declined to interfere. (Paras 2-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226/227 with the DRT's order refusing interim relief in a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act is available.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The court declined to interfere under Article 226/227 and left it open for the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226/227
- SARFAESI Act Section 13(2) demand notice
- DRT interim relief
- Non-performing asset
- Possession notice
