The Supreme Court of India, through the Bench comprising of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta expounded that, "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".
Brief Facts
The instant matter pertains to the challenge against Bombay High Court entertaining writ petition against DRT order which dismissed the borrower’s application seeking to stay auction proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The borrower failed to deposit the required amount and the vacation of the previous order of DRT led the bank to finalise the sale of auction properties.
Observations of the Court
Supreme Court on Article 226 and alternative remedy
While considering the facts of the instant case, the Court traced out the approach against entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there was effective remedy available, with reference to cases like United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., 2010 Latest Caselaw 962 SC. The Court reflected the strong deprecation of practice of entertaining writ petitions in like matters and further cited the recently decided case of Celir LLP vs Bafna Motors Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 2023 Latest Caselaw 9887 Bom to clarify that “the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available.”
The Court relied on Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, 2018 Latest Caselaw 151 SC to state that “the right of redemption stands extinguished on the execution of the registered sale deed.” The Court reiterated the exceptions when the High Court could entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy:
“i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and
iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.”
The Court further 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.”
Decision of the Court
The Apex Court allowed the instant appeal, dismissed the writ petition and sought to remind the High Courts to follow the Top Court's decision in Satyawati Tondon (supra) while targeting at the various petitions arising out of DRT and SARFAESI Act being entertained by the High Courts.
Case Title: PHR Invent Educational Society vs UCO Bank And Ors
Case No.: Civil Appeal 4845 of 2022
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 236 SC
Coram: Justice BR Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Khalid M.S., Adv.; Mr. A. Karthik, AOR; Mr. Manu Krishnan G, Adv.; Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Adv.; Mr. Kavinesh Rm, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr. Adv.; Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR; Mr. Sunny Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. Partha Sil, AOR; Mr. Sanjay Kr. Saxena, Adv.; Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv.; Ms. Sayani Bhattachgarya, Adv.; Mr. Abhiraj Chaudhary, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
