High Court reiterates that writ petitions challenging DRT orders under SARFAESI Act will not be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 18 is available. Prior precedent is strictly followed, strengthening the bar against bypassing alternate remedies in financial/debt recovery disputes. Binding authority for subordinate courts and persuasive for other forums.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/29977/2025 of MS HARGOBIND RICE MILLS Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011612552025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY, JUDGE |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana High Court jurisdiction; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established precedent on exercise of writ jurisdiction where alternate statutory remedy exists |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law; Banking Law; SARFAESI Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Court’s writ jurisdiction can be exercised to challenge DRT orders when appellate remedy under Section 18 SARFAESI Act is available and effective? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), a writ petition under Article 226 challenging such orders will not be entertained by the High Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the statutory remedy before the appropriate appellate forum. This approach is in consonance with judicial discipline and established bar against bypassing alternate remedies. The judgment thus reinforces the position that litigants must exhaust available statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction in financial/debt recovery matters. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific judgments cited in text. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Judicial self-restraint in entertaining writs amid available alternate remedy; statutory appellate framework under SARFAESI Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a borrower, challenged the DRT-I Chandigarh’s order dated 22-08-2025 in SA No. 90-2021 before the High Court, after the DRT dismissed the petition as time barred. The High Court noted the alternative appellate remedy available under Section 18 SARFAESI Act and declined to entertain the writ, granting liberty to approach the appellate forum. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), and forums dealing with SARFAESI Act disputes |
| Follows | Follows the long-standing judicial principle of alternate remedy barring writ jurisdiction in financial matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ petitions challenging DRT orders will not be entertained where an appellate remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act exists.
- Petitions filed without resorting to statutory remedies are likely to be dismissed at threshold.
- Ensures faster, more orderly process by promoting use of the SARFAESI Act’s appellate mechanisms.
- Lawyers must advise clients to exhaust all available statutory remedies before approaching writ courts in SARFAESI proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that the impugned DRT order could be challenged via an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
- Following established judicial discipline, the court refrained from exercising writ jurisdiction as a parallel remedy, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting alternative statutory appellate forums.
- The court did not examine the merits of the challenge to the DRT order and instead granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum.
- The reasoning reinforces the clear and consistent judicial approach that High Courts will not ordinarily entertain writ petitions where adequate and effective statutory remedies are available under special statutes such as the SARFAESI Act.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Assailed DRT-I Chandigarh’s order dismissing the SA as time barred.
Factual Background
The petitioner, M/s Hargobind Rice Mills, challenged an order dated 22-08-2025 of Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh, which dismissed the petitioner’s application (SA No. 90-2021) as time barred. The challenge was brought by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court noted the alternative appellate remedy available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and declined to entertain the writ, granting liberty to avail the said remedy.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, provides statutory appellate remedy against orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
- The High Court interpreted that availability of this remedy bars direct access to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for challenges to DRT orders.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.