High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against recovery notices issued under the SARFAESI Act or RDB Act, as these statutes are self-contained codes providing efficacious alternative statutory remedies for aggrieved persons.

1. The petitioner who is guarantor towards the loan obtained by borrower i.e. respondent No. 4-Mr. Shubhas Chand Jain, has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the notice dated 23.01.2026 issued by the respondents/Central Bank of India under Rule 8(a) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) against the borrower as well as the guarantor towards recovery of loan.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Balance Confirmation communication (Annexure P/11) issued from the Central Bank of India, Branch – Radhikanagar, the petitioner who is the guarantor is liable for payment of guarantee dated 11.03.2015 to the extend of Rs.13,30,000/-, whereas the Central Bank of India has issued notice (Annexure P/11) by which it has exceeded its jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, under Section 1(4) which explicitly mandates minimum pecuniary threshold of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction / authority to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner as it is below its pecuniary limit.

3. He would further submit that the Central Bank of India has preferred an application bearing O.A. No.684/2025 (Annexure P/9) against one R.S. Enterprises (borrower), through its Proprietor, Subhash Chand Jain and his wife, Basanti Bai Jain (guarantor), wherein it has mentioned in para No.3 that the claim in respect of amount due from the defendants exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that by the notice (Annexure P/11) issued on 12.09.2017 it is quite clear that the petitioner is a guarantor to the extend of Rs.13,30,000/- and further after that, nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate whether the guarantor period has been extended or not.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The point to be determined by this Court is:-

“Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable against the impugned notice or not?

6. To ascertain the Point of determination, this Court has to examine the general scope and limits of the High Court’s powers and discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution o India in relation to proceedings arising out of the DRT and DRAT.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sanjay Vs. Indian Bank [2025 SCC OnLine SC 368] has summarized the governing principles for the exercise of such jurisdiction and has held as under:-

"9. It is well settled that interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such in fraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course. In the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, (1980) 2 SCC 437, the dealers in that case had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3%, which was raised from the original 2 per cent under Haryana Act 22 of 1977. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate was declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab, (1980) 1 SCC 416. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate having been declared ultra vires, became refundable to the respective dealers from whom they were 2025 SCC OnLine SC 368 recovered by the Market Committee concerned. The demand for refund of the excess amounts illegally recovered from them not having been complied with, the dealers filed Writ Petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to that effect to the Market Committee concerned. The Market Committees contended that although the refund of