1. Notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act to guarantor for loan default — Writ petition under Article 226 challenging same. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, BALAJI MEDAMALLI, JJ.
Immadi Eswara Chandra Vidya Sagar, S/o. Ammanna - Petitioner
Vs.
The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank And Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 6000 of 2026
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt. Thota Suneetha
For the Petitioner: Sri T.B.L.Murthy
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt. Thota Suneetha
For the Petitioner: Sri T.B.L.Murthy
Writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not entertained when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, unless exceptional circumstances are proven. Furthermore, interim relief cannot be granted if the court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction due to the availability of such remedy.
Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(4) and 2(1)(f) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge against notice issued under Section 13(4) - Availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedy - Writ petition, though maintainable, is ordinarily not to be entertained when a statutory alternative remedy exists - Exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated to persuade the court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 (Paras 5, 6, 8).
(B) Interim Relief - Scope of Article 226 - Article 226 cannot be used to grant interim relief as the only and final relief when the court declines to determine the rights of the parties due to the availability of an alternative remedy - Interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief; if the proceedings do not survive because the petition is not entertained, it is impermissible to pass an order in the nature of interim relief (Paras 13, 14).
Facts of the case:
A guarantor, who falls within the definition of a "borrower" under the SARFAESI Act, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the said Act. The petitioner sought the court's intervention and specific directions, relying on previous judgments to justify the necessity of such directions despite the existence of a statutory remedy.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would allow the court to bypass the general rule of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies. Consequently, the court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act, and whether interim relief can be granted when the court declines to entertain such a petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial prudence demands that courts refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when a specialized statutory hierarchy of appeal is provided. Once a court declines to entertain a writ petition because an alternative remedy exists, the proceedings terminate, and the court cannot grant interim relief (such as stays or status quo) to facilitate the pursuit of that alternative remedy, as such relief must be ancillary to a final determination of rights.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner relied on earlier case where directions were issued to bank despite alternative remedy — Court held inapplicable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Writ petition not entertainable due to efficacious statutory alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act — No exceptional circumstances shown. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. When statutory alternative remedy exists, High Court ordinarily should not entertain writ petition under Article 226. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Writ petition dismissed — No order as to costs — Pending applications closed. (Para 15 )
6. Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable against a Section 13(4) notice under the SARFAESI Act?
Yes, maintainable, but ordinarily not entertained when statutory alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act is available and no exceptional circumstances exist. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Can a High Court grant interim relief while dismissing a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy?
No. Once the court declines to entertain the writ petition due to alternative remedy, no interim relief can be granted as no final relief can be given. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. What is the legal status of a guarantor under the SARFAESI Act?
A guarantor is covered within the definition of 'borrower' under Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Smt. Thota Suneetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, to whom notice has been issued under Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’).
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner is covered in the definition of the expression “borrower” under Section 2(1)(f) the SARFAESI Act, in as much as the petitioner stands as guarantor for the loan taken by respondent No.2-the principal borrower.
4. Under the challenge is the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which is one of the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act.
5. The petitioner has got the statutory efficacious alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated time and again that in such matters, the writ petition should not be entertained. On consideration of various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Boddu Prasad Rao v. Punjab National Bank , 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5742 held that the petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India though maintainable but in view of the statutory alternative remedy, it is ordinarily not to be entertained.
7. Paragraph Nos.11 to 13 & 16 in Boddu Prasad Rao (supra) reads as under:
11. In Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and others {(2001) 6 SCC569} the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing the sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the court refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under the constitutional provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.The relevant part from O.C.Krishnan (supra) reads as under:
“In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the Act"). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We Jo not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court an I whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum.
The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this last track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”
12. In Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal {(2014) 1 SCC 479}, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
18. Any person aggrieved by any order made by the DRT under Section 17 may also prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Ac
