Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

High Court Should Refrain From Entertaining Matters When Alternative Remedy Under SARFAESI Act Is Available: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Others, delivered on April 10, 2024, observed that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act is available, except in specific exceptional circumstances.

The judgment hinged on the legal question of the High Court’s jurisdiction in entertaining writ petitions against orders passed under the SARFAESI Act, particularly when statutory alternative remedies are available.

The appellant, PHR Invent Educational Society, appealed against the High Court’s order, which had set aside the Debts Recovery Tribunal’s (DRT) dismissal of the borrower’s application for restoration of a Securitization Application post-auction of mortgaged properties. The primary issue was whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition despite an alternative remedy being available under the SARFAESI Act.

Alternative Remedy and High Court’s Jurisdiction: The Court observed that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative remedy was available under the SARFAESI Act. It emphasized that the High Courts should not interfere in such matters, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Chhabil Dass Agarwal case.

Validity of Auction Purchase and Borrower’s Conduct: The Court noted that the auction sale, once confirmed, should only be interfered with in cases of fraud or collusion, which was not present in this case. The Court also highlighted the borrower’s failure to comply with the DRT’s order, which had a direct impact on the outcome.

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226: The Supreme Court reiterated its stance that petitions under Article 226 should not be entertained in the presence of an effective alternative remedy, except in exceptional circumstances, which were not found in this case.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order dated February 4, 2022, in Writ Petition No. 5275 of 2021, and dismissing the writ petition with costs imposed upon the borrower.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Others

 

Similar News