The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 if an effective alternative statutory remedy is available, except in cases falling within well-defined exceptions.

Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been issuing directions that, when there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the borrower under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the 'SARFAESI Act'), the High Courts should not entertain writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exceptions to this normal rule have also been well defined, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603, and it reads as under:-

15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments 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 still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

2. But despite the repeated directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of the borrowers continue to knock at the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without exhausting the remedies available to them under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. The instant writ petition filed by a borrower is one such case.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the measures initiated by the first respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, against the petitioners, guarantors and secured assets and other consequential measures is premature, for non-fulfillment of 60 clear day notice, between the date of issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) and the date of issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the measures initiated under 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is excessive of jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and is liable to be declared as null and void.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners are defaulters with the first respondent Bank. The first respondent Bank has also initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, credit facilities to the tune of Rs.36,00,00,000/-( Rupees Thirty Six crores) was availed by the petitioner for its Iron and Steel trading business. The account of the petitioner was also classified as a non-performing asset on 29.12.2013. The first respondent Bank has also taken possession of some of the secured assets belonging to the petitioner under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The first respondent Bank has also sold some of the properties under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The sale certificates have also been issued in favour of the auction purchasers. The sale certificates for the properties sold were issued on 11.04.2017, 18.04.2017, 16.08.2017 and 21.08.2017.

5. The petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in S.A.No.10 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai challenging a possession notice issued by the first respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It w