Appellate courts uphold that existence of statutory remedy under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act precludes writ petitions against measures taken under the Act.

Vaidhai Agarwal @ Sonu Kumari Kedia For the Appellant in M.A.T. 1019 of 2025 : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty For the Appellant in M.A.T. 1020 of 2025 : Mr. Sudip Deb, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Ms. Ipsita Ghosh For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh For the Respondent Bank : Mr. Sauradeep Dutta Ms. Himadree Ghosh For the Respondent Nos. 5, 7 to 9 : Mr. Subhrangshu Panda Mr. Snehasish Dey For the State in M.A.T. 1019 of 2025 : Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Abu siddiqui Mallik For the State in M.A.T. 1020 of 2025 : Mr. Washim Ahmed Ms. Sujata Mukherjee Heard & Judgment on : August 7, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as both emanate out of the judgment and order dated July 8, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 15135 of 2025.

2. M.A.T. 1019 of 2025 is at the behest of an heir and legal representative of a guarantor. The appellant is to be treated as a guarantor of the credit facilities that the borrower which is the appellant in M.A.T. 1020 of 2025 enjoyed from the bank.

3. M.A.T. 1020 of 2025 is at the behest of borrower.

4. Prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the appellant in M.A.T. 1019 of 2025 is considered and rejected since the borrower is represented before the Court. Borrower is a family concern belonging to family members of the appellant in M.A.T. 1019 of 2025. Borrower is not setting up a claim adverse to the appellant in M.A.T. 1019 of 2025. There is also an issue of limitation involved as the right of the private parties to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 may get affected.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the borrower submits that, the borrower came to learn about a measure taken under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 on July 2, 2025 from to a notice dated June 26, 2025 regarding sale of an immovable property. He submits that, the seisin bank made a misrepresentation before the learned Court in of the earlier round of litigation where the bank claimed that Sale Certificate was not issued.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the borrower refers to the Sale Certificate dated May 9, 2014 issued by the bank. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of such Sale Certificate. He submits that, Sale Certificate is not in consonance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. He submits that, the bank wrongfully and illegally included the words “The scheduled property was sold on “As is where is basis”, “As is what is basis” and “whatever there is basis”.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the borrower submits that in view of the fact that the Coordinate Bench passed an interim protection and in view of the fact that his client is ready and willing to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 2002, the interim protection granted by the Coordinate Bench should be extended.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that the interim order granted by the Coordinate Bench was on the basis of the undertaking given by him. He submits on instructions that the bank sold the immovable property by a Sale Certificate dated May 9, 2024. He relies upon 2014 (6) SCC 1 (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors.) and 2025 SCC Online SC 1443 ( PNB Housing Finance Limited vs. Sh. Manoj Saha ) to contend that the writ petition should not be entertained in view of the fact that both the appellants possess adequate alternative statutory remedy.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the bank draws the attention of the Court to the conduct of the two appellants. H