1. By way of their amended prayer in this writ petition, Venshiv Pharma Chem (P) Limited and its Managing Director, the petitioners, assail the auction sale of their properties by the State Bank of India (hereinafter, the bank) on 30.11.2016 (wrongly shown as 30.11.2017 in the prayer) pursuant to the e-auction sale notice dated 21.10.2016 (wrongly shown as 23.09.2017 in the prayer). They seek a consequential direction to set aside the said sale.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioners herein already filed S.A. No. 513 of 2016 under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, the SARFAESI Act) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter, the Tribunal) at Hyderabad. Their prayers therein read as follows:

(i) Declare that the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 21.10.2016 issued by the Respondent Bank and fixing the date of auction on 30.11.2016 against the schedule properties as arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable under the Act and Rules, 2002.

(ii) Declare that the Notice issued under Rule 8 (6) of the Rules, 2002 dated 23.09.2016 and 03.11.2016 issued by the Respondent Bank against the alleged secured assets as arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable under the Act and Rules, 2002.

(iii) Set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under Section 13 (4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act read with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 including the Demand Notice issued by the Respondent Bank against the schedule property.

(iv) Declare that taking physical possession of the unit along with plant and machinery belongs to the Applicant No. 1 without following Rule 4 read with Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002 by the Respondent Bank as illegal and arbitrary.

(v) Order to re-deliver the schedule property to the Applicants with a proper Inventory and Panchanama henceforth.

(vi) Declare that the Demand Notice issued by the Respondent Bank has no locostandi and consequently direct the Respondent Bank to issue a fresh Demand Notice in accordance with law.

(vii) Set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under Section 13 (2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 against the schedule properties.

(viii) Direct the Respondent Bank to pay costs including the compensatory costs and damages to the extent of Rs. 25 lakhs.

(ix) and pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. This S.A. is still pending consideration before the Tribunal.

4. Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri M. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the bank, would contend that it is not open to the petitioners to come before this Court by way of the present writ petition reiterating their challenge to the auction sale when the same issue is pending consideration before the Tribunal. He would rely on case law in support of his contention that the writ petition should be dismissed on this short ground.

5. On the contrary, Sri C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would argue that the writ petition is maintainable as the statutory alternative remedy proved to be ineffective and that pendency of the same would not bar his clients from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He would further submit that his clients would withdraw the pending securitization application, if necessary, and that this Court may adjudicate upon the merits of this case.

6. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned High Courts not to entertain writ petitions arising under the SARFAESI Act, given the hierarchy of statutory remedies provided under the enactment itself. However, it must be remembered that refusal by High Courts to entertain writ petitions due to availability of alternative remedies is a self-imposed restraint a