[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Prakashbhai Baldevbhai Patel vs Canara Bank on 13 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3494 of 2026
==========================================================
PRAKASHBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
CANARA BANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. MITUL SHELAT with NILESH P
UDERNANI(9050) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
PARTH S SHAH(8375) with MR. CHETAN AGARWAL for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 13/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out
forthwith.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this
Court for the following reliefs:-
A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit
and allow this petition, in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2026
(Annexure B) passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery
Tribunal Ahmedabad in Securitization Application
No.32 of 2026, in the interest of justice.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
and declare that all the measures undertaken by
Respondent, starting from the issuance of Demand
Notice dated 18.08.2025 issued u/s 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Annexure D) including the
measure of taking physical possession of the subject
property on 14.02.2026 in furtherance of the Notice
of taking possession dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure E),
under the provisions of SARFAESI Act are void and
wholly without jurisdiction;
(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be
pleased to stay the implementation, operation and
execution of impugned order dated 12.02.2026
(Annexure B) passed by the Hon'ble Debts R ecovery
Tribunal I, at Ahmedabad in Securitization
Application No. 32 of 2026 and further be pleased to
restrain the Respondent from taking further
measures under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 in furtherance to the Demand Notice dated
18.08.2025 u/s 13(2) of the Act, 2002 (Annexure D)
and maintain status quo qua the subject property, in
the interest of justice;
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant
such other and further relief as deemed just and
proper in the interest of justice.
(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and
declare that Auction notice dated 24.02.2026
(Annexure F), under the provisions of SARFAESI Act
is void and wholly without jurisdiction
(G) Your Lordships maybe pleased to hold and
declare the Property of Petitioner as auctioned to be
returned to the Petitioner, as the sale itself is void ab
initio;
3. The brief facts of the present petition are stated as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
3.1. The respondent-Bank had sanctioned various credit
facilities aggregating to a sum of Rs. 23,35,01,816/- in favour
of M/s. Ramdev International Castor Products Private Limited,
the principal borrower.
3.2. The present petitioners are stated to have been
classified as guarantors and/or mortgagors in respect of the
aforesaid loan facilities. In that capacity, certain immovable
properties standing in their names, as well as in the names of
other co-mortgagors, were offered as security for the said
credit facilities. The loan account of the principal borrower
thereafter came to be classified as a Non-Performing Asset on
31.01.2025.
3.3. Pursuant to such classification, the respondent-Bank
issued a demand notice dated 18.08.2025 under Section 13(2)
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
3.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said demand
notice was never served upon them in accordance with the
mandatory requirements prescribed under the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioners, the
contents of the said notice came to their knowledge only upon
obtaining certified copies of the proceedings from the office of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kadi, in
connection with the proceedings initiated by the respondent-
Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
3.5. It is further the case of the petitioners that even prior to
issuance of the aforesaid notice dated 18.08.2025, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
respondent-Bank had already instituted Original Application
No.377 of 2025 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act, 1993 on 24.07.2025 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal.
3.6. The petitioners contend that in the said Original
Application, the respondent-Bank itself had expressly
described late Shri Baldevbhai Maganbhai Patel and late Shri
Ladhabhai Ukabhai Patel as deceased persons in the cause
title. The Bank had also impleaded their respective legal heirs
and representatives as party defendants and sought to
proceed against the estate of the deceased through such legal
heirs in accordance with law.
3.7. According to the petitioners, late Shri Baldevbhai
Maganbhai Patel had expired on 20.05.2024 and late Shri
Ladhabhai Ukabhai Patel had expired on 25.05.2024, i.e.,
much prior to the issuance of the demand notice dated
18.08.2025.
3.8. Despite having knowledge of the demise of Shri
Baldevbhai Maganbhai Patel and Shri Ladhabhai Ukabhai
Patel, the respondent-Bank issued the demand notice dated
18.08.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Act in the names of the
deceased persons and thereafter proceeded to continue
recovery measures under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Act.
3.9. On the basis of the aforesaid notice, the respondent-
Bank obtained orders under Section 14 of the Act for taking
physical possession of the secured assets from the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Sanand, as well as
from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates at Kadi
and Viramgam.
3.10. In furtherance of the said orders, the Court
Commissioners issued possession notices dated 22.01.2026
and 31.01.2026 intimating their intention to take physical
possession of the properties on 14.02.2026 and 15.03.2026
respectively. Simultaneously, the respondent-Bank also issued
an Auction Sale Notice dated 31.01.2026 proposing to
conduct auction of the secured assets on 18.02.2026.
3.11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, the
petitioners approached the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal
by filing Securitisation Application No.32 of 2026 under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging, inter alia, the
entire proceedings commencing from the demand notice
dated 18.08.2025.
3.12. The learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, by its order
dated 12.02.2026, rejected the application preferred by the
petitioners seeking interim relief. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for
learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Udernani for the petitioners.
5. Learned senior advocate, in support of his prayers, made
following submissions:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
5.1. Mr. Shelat, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioners, has principally submitted that the notice
issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was
admittedly addressed to and issued in the names of persons
who had already expired. It is therefore contended that such
notice is legally unsustainable and, consequently, the entire
proceedings initiated on the basis thereof are vitiated and
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
5.2. The learned senior advocate further submitted that
issuance of a statutory notice to a deceased person is a nullity
in the eyes of law. In such circumstances, this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, can certainly intervene in the interest of
justice. According to the learned senior advocate, when the
very foundation of the proceedings, namely the notice under
Section 13(2), is illegal, this Court would be justified in
quashing the said notice along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
5.3. The learned senior advocate further submitted that the
learned Debts Recovery Tribunal has committed a serious
error in failing to appreciate the aforesaid aspect in its proper
perspective, and such failure has resulted in grave
miscarriage of justice.
6. By making above submissions, learned senior advocate
has placed reliance on following decisions:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
1) PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and
others, decided on 10.04.2024.
2) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti
Suzuki (India) Limited, decided on 25.07.2019
3) Nilesh kumar N. Kotak and others Vs. Union of
India and Another, decided on 29.09.2014.
4) Sheeba Philominal Merlin and Another Vs. The
Repatriates and others, decided on 10.08.2010.
7. Having regard to the submissions advanced and the
material placed on record, the short question that arises for
consideration before this Court is whether "a party, having
already availed the statutory remedy provided under the
statute for challenging the notice and the consequential
proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and having
failed to obtain relief therein, can thereafter be permitted to
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?".
8. So as to decide the aforesaid question, necessary
provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, deserves to be considered
and for the sake of brevity, it is reproduced hereinbelow:-
17. [Application against measures to recover secured
debts].--(1) Any person (including borrower),
aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-
section (4) of section 13 taken by the 23 secured
creditor or his authorised officer under this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
Chapter,1[may make an application along with such
fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery
Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-
five days from the date on which such measure had
been taken:
[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for
making the application by the borrower and the
person other than the borrower.]
[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that the communication of the reasons to the
borrower by the secured creditor for not having
accepted his representation or objection or the likely
action of the secured creditor at the stage of
communication of reasons to the borrower shall not
entitle the person (including borrower) to make an
application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this
sub-section.]
4[(1A) An application under sub-section (1) shall be
filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction--
(a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises;
(b) where the secured asset is located; or
(c) the branch or any other office of a bank or
financial institution is maintaining an account in
which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.]
5[(2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider
whether any of the measures referred to in sub-
section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor
for enforcement of security are in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
6[(3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining
the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence
produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that
any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of
section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the
rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the
management or restoration of possession, of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
secured assets to the borrower or other aggrieved
person, it may, by order,--
(a) declare the recourse to any one or more measures
referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by
the secured creditor as invalid; and
(b) restore the possession of secured assets or
management of secured assets to the borrower or
such other aggrieved person, who has made a
application under sub-section (1), as the case may be;
and
(c) pass such other direction as it may consider
appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the
recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-
section (4) of section 13.]
(4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the
recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-
section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, the secured creditor
shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of
the measures specified under sub-section (4) of
section 13 to recover his secured debt.
[(4A) Where--
(i) any person, in an application under sub-section (1),
claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the
secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after
examining the facts of the case and evidence
produced by the parties in relation to such claims
shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security
interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether
lease or tenancy,--
(a) has expired or stood determined; or
(b) is contrary to section 65A of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or
(c) is contrary to terms of mortgage; or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
(d) is created after the issuance of notice of default
and demand by the Bank under sub-section (2) of
section 13 of the Act; and
(ii) the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that
tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured
asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b)
or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (i), then
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other law for the time being in force, the Debt
Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit
in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]
(5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall
be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as
expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty
days from the date of such application:
Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from
time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be
recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period
of pendency of the application with the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from
the date of making of such application made under
sub-section (1).
(6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as
specified in sub-section (5), any part to the application
may make an application, in such form as may be
prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the
Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of
the application pending before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such
application, make an order for expeditious disposal of
the pending application by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal.
(7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts
Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of
the application in accordance with the provisions of
the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made
thereunder.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
[17A. Making of application to Court of District Judge
in certain cases.- In under section 17 shall be made to
the Court of District Judge in that State having the
case of a borrower residing in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, the application jurisdiction over the
borrower which shall pass an order on such
application.
Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that the communication of the reasons to the
borrower by the secured creditor for not having
accepted his representation or objection or the likely
action of the secured creditor at the stage of
communication of reasons shall not entitle the person
(including borrower) to make an application to the
Court of District Judge under this section.]
18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.--(1) Any person
aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal1[under section 17, may prefer an appeal
along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the
Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.
[Provided that different fees may be prescribed fo
filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person
other than the borrower:]
[Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained
unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate
Tribunal fifty per cent. of the amount of debt due from
him, as claimed by the secured creditors or
determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
whichever is less:
Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the
reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount
to not less than twenty-five per cent. of debt referred
to in the second proviso.]
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of
the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made
thereunder.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
[18A. Validation of fees levied.--Any fee levied and
collected for preferring, before the commencement of
the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of
Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004, an appeal to the
Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal
under this Act, shall be deemed always to have been
levied and collected in accordance with law as if the
amendments made to sections 17 and 18 of this Act by
sections 10 and 12 of the said Act were in force at all
material times.
18B. Appeal to High Court in certain cases. Any
borrower residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and aggrieved by any order made by the Court of
District Judge under section 17A may prefer an
appeal, to the High Court having jurisdiction over
such Court, within thirty days from the date of receipt
of the order of the Court of District Judge: Provided
that no appeal shall be preferred unless the borrower
has deposited, with the Jammu and Kashmir High
Court, fifty per cent. of the amount of the debt due
from him as claimed by the secured creditor or
determined by the Court of District Judge, whichever
is less: Provided further that the High Court may, for
the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the
amount to not less than twenty-five per cent. of the
debt referred to in the first proviso.]
[18C. Right to lodge a caveat.--(1) Where an
application or an appeal is expected to be made or has
been made under sub-section (1) of section 17 or
section 17A or sub-section (1) of section 18 or section
18B, the secured creditor or any person claiming
right to appear before the Tribunal or the Court of
District Judge or the Appellate Tribunal or the High
Court, as the case may be, on the hearing of such
application or appeal, may lodge a caveat in respect
thereof.
(2) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section
(1),--
(a) the secured creditor by whom the caveat has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
lodged (hereafter in this section referred to as the
caveator) shall serve notice of the caveat by
registered post, acknowledgement due, on the person
by whom the application has been or is expected to be
made under sub-section (1);
(b) any person by whom the caveat has been lodged
(hereafter in this section referred to as the caveator)
shall serve notice of the caveat by registered post
acknowledgement due, on the person by whom the
application has been or is expected to be made under
sub-section (1).
(3) Where after a caveat has been lodged under sub-
section (1), any application or appeal is filed before
the Tribunal or the court of District Judge or the
Appellate Tribunal or the High Court, as the case 26
may be, the Tribunal or the District Judge or the
Appellate Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may
be, shall serve a notice of application or appeal filed
by the applicant or the appellant on the caveator.
(4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on
the applicant or the Appellant, he shall periodically
furnish the caveator with a copy of the application or
the appeal made by him and also with copies of any
paper or document which has been or may be filed by
him in support of the application or the appeal.
(5) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section
(1), such caveat shall not remain in force after the
expiry of the period of ninety days from the date of
which it was lodged unless the application or appeal
referred to in sub-section (1) has been made befor the
expiry of the said period.]
9. The petitioners have already chosen to avail the remedy
under Section 17, by approaching the DRT. It is pertinent to
note that the matter at large is still pending before the DRT
and the DRT has only rejected the application for interim
relief with the following observation:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
I have considered rival contentions of ld.
Counsel for both the parties and perused whatever
evidence in the form of pleadings in present SA and
documents filed in its support have been brought on
the record of this Tribunal. So far as mortgaged
immovable properties at Sr.no. 1 & 4 in para 5.3, at
page 8 & 9 of SA are concerned, Respondent's
Counsel himself has filed pursis Ex.R/06 stating that
as interim moratorium is in operation. Respondent is
not going to take physical possession of above
mortgaged /secured assets on 15.03.2026 &
14.02.2026. However, as the estate of deceased
Baldevbhai Maganbhai Patel is duly represented by
one of his legal heirs & representative, being his
son, who is Applicant no.1 also and Applicants have
not disclosed other legal heir of deceased
Baldevbhai Patel, there appears to be prima-facie no
need to issue fresh demand notice to his LRs and to
conduct fresh SARFAESI proceedings, in view of
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal no. 10215/2011, Shivsankara & Anr.
V/s. SP Vedvyasa, decided on 29.03.2023. Further,
so far as estate of deceased Ladhabhai Ukabhai
Patel is concerned, as SARFAESI measures initiated
by Respondent Bank against mortgaged immovable
property belonging to deceased Ladhabhai Ukabhai
Patel have not been challenged by any of his legal
heir or representative, who have not come before
this Tribunal, prima-facie, in view of outstanding
dues of Rs.20,62,05,635.93 as per Demand Notice
u/s.13 (2) dated 18.08.2025, at this stage, it will not
be in the interest of justice to restrain Respondent
Bank from proceeding further against mortgaged
immovable properties at Sr.no. 2 & 3, as mentioned
in para 5.3 of SA, as also in impugned Demand
Notice, without giving fair opportunity of hearing
and time to file Reply to SA to Respondent Bank.
Reply to SA, if any, may be filed.
Put up on 02.04.2026 for hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
10. Having considered the rival submissions and the
material placed on record, it appears that the learned Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has duly examined the
contention raised by the petitioners with regard to issuance of
the notice upon deceased persons. The said issue was
specifically considered by the Tribunal and, after assigning
reasons, the Tribunal declined to grant the relief prayed for
and rejected the application for interim relief. Thus, it clearly
emerges that the learned Tribunal has applied its mind to the
contention raised by the petitioners and has passed the
impugned order on merits. In such circumstances, once the
Tribunal has adjudicated upon the issue and passed an order,
the statutory remedy available to the petitioners is to
challenge the said order by way of an appeal under Section 18
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal.
11. In view of the aforesaid position, instead of invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners ought to have availed
the appellate remedy specifically provided under Section 18 of
the SARFAESI Act. Merely because the petitioners seek to
raise a contention regarding the legality and validity of the
notice on the ground that it was issued in the names of
deceased persons, the petitioners cannot be permitted to
bypass the statutory mechanism and invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court at their convenience. The petitioners,
having consciously elected to avail the statutory remedy
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by approaching the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
Debts Recovery Tribunal and having failed to obtain the
desired relief, cannot now be permitted to turn around and
invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India so as to seek reconsideration of the
very same issue.
11.1. Ordinarily, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 may be invoked even against a show-cause notice where
the action complained of is wholly without jurisdiction, suffers
from patent lack of authority, or is in clear violation of the
statutory provisions. However, in the present case, once the
petitioners have already invoked the statutory remedy and the
Tribunal has examined the matter and passed an order, the
proper course available to the petitioners is to pursue the
statutory appellate remedy provided under the scheme of the
Act. The legislative framework under the SARFAESI Act
provides a complete mechanism of redressal, including an
appellate remedy, and therefore the petitioners are expected
to follow the said statutory hierarchy.
11.2. If such a course of directly invoking the writ jurisdiction
after having failed before the statutory forum is permitted, it
would defeat the very scheme of the statute and enable
litigants to circumvent the statutory process. Such a practice,
if allowed, would encourage litigants to treat the writ
jurisdiction as an alternative forum of appeal, which is
impermissible in law. The writ jurisdiction cannot be
permitted to be invoked in a manner that allows an
unsuccessful litigant to re-agitate the very same issue without
exhausting the remedy specifically provided under the statute.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
12. In that view of the matter, under the guise of invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, a party cannot be permitted to have a
second inning after having already availed the statutory
remedy and having failed therein. The writ jurisdiction of this
Court cannot be converted into an appellate forum against the
orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal when the
statute itself provides a specific appellate mechanism. On this
short ground alone, the present petition does not merit
consideration and is accordingly not entertained. The petition
stands dismissed. However, it is clarified that the petitioners
shall be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal
before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section
18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in accordance with law.
13. Insofar as the authorities cited at the bar are concerned,
there can be no cavil with the legal proposition laid down
therein that if a statutory notice is issued in the name of a
deceased person, the same may be regarded as a nullity and,
upon challenge, such notice along with the consequential
proceedings may be liable to be quashed and set aside.
However, in the facts of the present case, the petitioners have
already elected to challenge the proceedings by availing the
statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Once such remedy has
been invoked and the Tribunal has adjudicated upon the
matter, the petitioners cannot bypass the statutory appellate
forum and directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3494/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
cannot be permitted to alternately invoke statutory and
constitutional remedies depending upon their convenience or
the outcome before the statutory forum. The authorities relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners were rendered
in different factual contexts where the parties had directly
approached the constitutional court without first invoking the
statutory adjudicatory mechanism. The factual matrix of the
present case being materially different, the said authorities do
not advance the case of the petitioners and are therefore not
applicable to the controversy at hand.
14. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is not
entertained and dismissed accordingly with no order as to
cost.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
NIHAL PATEL
