ORDER :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. An issue of seminal importance has arisen in this batch of 46 writ petitions where the actions of the Banks/Financial Institutions/Secured Creditors initiated under Sections 13 and 14 of “ SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002” (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act/Act”), have been questioned by the borrowers and the guarantors and aggrieved persons on the plea, amongst others, that though there is a statutory remedy available, it is of a limited nature and not efficacious and hence, they have been compelled to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Naturally, the Banks/Financial Institutions have opposed this plea contending that since statutory remedy available is indeed efficacious and hence, these petitions are not maintainable.

2. It has been strenuously argued before us on behalf of the petitioners that, even though the statute provides an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against actions initiated under Section 13 and 14 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in these petitions, the same