##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

2

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

30.07.2026

1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the

appellant appeared through video conferencing.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 21.05.2026

(Smt. Basanti Bai Jain vs. Central Bank of India & Others)

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2651 of 2026,

whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed

as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge.

3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant

is a woman and the absolute owner of the immovable property in

question, which she acquired by way of a duly registered Gift

Deed and which constitutes her Streedhan. The said property is

her independent personal property and has no nexus with the

commercial borrowings of the principal borrower. The Appellant

had executed only a limited guarantee in favour of the

Respondent Bank, her liability being expressly restricted to

Rs.13,30,000/- as per the Bank's sanction/confirmation letter

dated 12.09.2017. Subsequently, the Respondent Bank, without

obtaining the Appellant's consent or concurrence, enhanced the

loan exposure from Rs.45,00,000/- to Rs.49,75,000/-, thereby

materially varying the terms of the contract and discharging the

Appellant from liability under Section 133 of the Indian Contract

Act, 1872. Despite the contractual limitation and such discharge,

3

the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI

Act, 2002 and issued a Demand Notice dated 23.01.2026 seeking

enforcement against the Appellant's independent property. The

Appellant submitted detailed objections under Section 13(3A) of

the SARFAESI Act, inter alia, challenging the enforceability of the

guarantee beyond the capped liability, the material alteration of

the contract, the legality of proceeding against her property, and

the incorrect classification of the loan account as a Non-

Performing Asset (NPA). She also pointed out that the Bank had

ignored the borrower's One-Time Settlement proposals and that

its own Core Banking System records reflected renewal and

continuation of the account till 2022. Aggrieved by the arbitrary

and jurisdictionally defective action of the Respondent Bank, the

Appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before the learned Single

Judge, the Appellant specifically contended that no efficacious

alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was

available to her since her contractual liability was limited to

Rs.13,30,000/-, which is below the statutory threshold prescribed

under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,

1993. However, without adjudicating the said jurisdictional

objection or examining the effect of the contractual limitation of

liability, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely

on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy before the

DRT. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPC

4

No.2651 of 2026, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant

herein / writ petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable vide

order dated 21.05.2026. Hence, this writ appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single

Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of

availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery

Tribunal (DRT) without first deciding the appellant's specific

jurisdictional objection. The appellant had categorically contended

that the proceedings against her were inherently without

jurisdiction since her contractual liability as guarantor was

expressly limited to Rs.13,30,000/-, which is below the statutory

threshold of Rs.20,00,000/- prescribed under Section 1(4) of the

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It is well settled that

where the jurisdiction of the statutory forum itself is under

challenge, the rule of alternate remedy does not operate as a bar

to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. He further submits that the

learned