SARFAESI Act — Challenge to e-auction notice — Alternative remedy before DRT — Writ petition not maintainable (Paras 2(v), 3–4)
Issue: Whether High Court should entertain writ petition challenging e-auction sale notice issued under SARFAESI proceedings.
Facts: Petitioners challenged e-auction notice dated 06.01.2026 issued by Central Bank of India in respect of mortgaged residential flat, contending that demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and possession proceedings were not properly served; petitioners had already filed S.A.No.121 of 2026 before DRT and earlier obtained interim protection.
Held: Since statutory remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act was already invoked before DRT, all grievances relating to auction notice and recovery measures ought to be pursued before DRT; no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. (Paras 2(v), 3–4)
SARFAESI proceedings — Non-service of notices — Questions to be agitated before DRT (Paras 2(iv), 3)
Issue: Whether alleged defects in service of demand and possession notices justify writ interference.
Facts: Petitioners alleged that demand notice dated 22.05.2023 under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act and subsequent possession proceedings were not served in prescribed manner and auction proceedings were initiated illegally.
Held: Such disputes relating to service, procedure and validity of SARFAESI measures are matters falling within jurisdiction of DRT and not for adjudication in writ proceedings at first instance. (Paras 2(iv), 3)
Writ jurisdiction — SARFAESI recovery proceedings — Liberty to pursue statutory remedies (Para 4)
Issue: Whether dismissal of writ petition bars borrower from pursuing statutory remedies.
Facts: Petitioners sought protection against dispossession and auction of secured asset despite pendency of securitisation application before DRT.
Held: While dismissing writ petition at admission stage, Court reserved liberty to petitioners to pursue remedies available in law before DRT. (Para 4)
