The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, has reaffirmed that writ petitions challenging actions taken under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable when an effective alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal exists. This judgment upholds established precedent, reinforcing the bar on the extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such contexts, and is binding on subordinate courts handling banking and securitization disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28224/2025 of ANJANEYA TRADING COMPANY Vs THE CANARA BANK |
| CNR | APHC010541312025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ & R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ and R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court judgments including Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) |
| Type of Law | Banking & Financial Law; Writ Jurisdiction; SARFAESI Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked against actions under SARFAESI Act when an alternate statutory remedy exists before the Tribunal. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act by way of application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 at this stage. The High Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction where clear statutory redressal mechanisms exist. This directly follows the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncements in Radha Krishan Industries and Satyawati Tondon. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771; United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | SARFAESI Act’s statutory remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal and Supreme Court guidance on maintainability of writs in presence of such remedies |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought relief against Canara Bank’s actions under the SARFAESI Act, approaching the High Court without availing of the alternate remedy statutorily provided; the Court refused interference due to the existence of this alternate remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (as a reiteration of existing law) |
| Follows | Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021); United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that writ petitions against actions taken under the SARFAESI Act are not ordinarily maintainable when the alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available and effective.
- Lawyers challenging SARFAESI actions must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
- Cites and applies authoritative Supreme Court precedent directly, reinforcing its precedential value for subordinate courts.
- No order as to costs, indicating no penal consequence for the attempt but clear affirmation of the alternate remedy principle.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by noting the statutory framework of the SARFAESI Act, which provides a clear and effective remedy to aggrieved parties by way of application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
- Relying on Supreme Court judgments — Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) and United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) — the Court underscored that intervention under Article 226 is not warranted when an efficacious alternate remedy exists.
- The Bench categorically declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that the alternate remedy principle applies squarely in banking and securitization cases under SARFAESI.
- The Court thus dismissed the writ without cost, giving clear guidance that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the forum for such grievances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought relief against actions initiated by Canara Bank under the SARFAESI Act.
Respondent
- Opposed the writ petition, likely relying (as reflected in the judgment’s reasoning) on the existence of an alternate statutory remedy under SARFAESI.
Factual Background
The dispute arose when the petitioner, M/s. Anjaneya Trading Company, approached the High Court seeking relief against action(s) taken by Canara Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner moved the writ jurisdiction of the High Court without availing the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as provided by the SARFAESI Act.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment considers the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), emphasizing its provision for an alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for aggrieved parties. The Court interprets this statutory redressal mechanism as effective and mandatory to exhaust prior to invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded. The judgment was delivered per curiam by both judges.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were established in this judgment. The decision adheres to established procedure regarding writ maintainability in light of statutory alternate remedies.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries and Satyawati Tondon is affirmed and applied.