Borrowers facing SARFAESI action are repeatedly drawn to the writ court — it is faster, cheaper, and does not require the pre-deposit discipline of the appellate route. And writ courts, just as repeatedly, turn them away. In Ashish Kumar v. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9826 of 2023, decided 22 September 2026), Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy of the Patna High Court dismissed a shop proprietor's writ petition against the bank's possession of his mortgaged home and its e-auction, without examining the merits, on the settled ground that the High Court “ordinarily should not entertain a writ petition… where an effective statutory alternative remedy is available.”
How the borrower reached the writ court
The petitioner borrowed from Canara Bank in 2020 against a mortgage of his residential property. The pandemic hit his shop\'s cash flows; the account slipped into default and was classified as a non-performing asset. The bank moved under the SARFAESI Act: demand notice, objections considered, possession of the house in July 2023, then an e-auction at which a third party bid successfully and paid the full price. With the sale certificate yet to issue, the borrower petitioned under Article 226, pleading hardship and his attempts at settlement.
Why the petition failed without a merits hearing
The Court applied the alternative-remedy doctrine in its classic form. SARFAESI is a self-contained code: Section 17 gives the borrower a full merits forum before the DRT against every measure under Section 13(4), and Section 18 an appeal beyond. Where Parliament has built that machinery, Article 226 is not a bypass for grievances the machinery can address. None of the recognised exceptions — jurisdictional nullity, breach of natural justice, vires challenges — was in play. The petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
Quick stay of possession or sale; sympathy for hardship; pressure on the bank to settle; no pre-deposit.
Dismissal on alternative remedy — often after months, with the Section 17 limitation clock spent and the auction a fait accompli.
The cost of choosing the wrong forum
The doctrine is not a technicality; it has teeth that bite the borrower. Time spent in a writ petition does not stop the DRT limitation of forty-five days, and while condonation is possible, delay explained by “we were before the High Court” is not always accepted. Meanwhile the auction concludes, the purchaser\'s equities harden, and remedies shrink from setting aside the sale to, at best, disputes over the surplus.
Notes for both sides
For borrowers: treat the forty-five-day window under Section 17 as the real deadline in a SARFAESI dispute. A writ petition is worth considering only in genuinely exceptional cases; otherwise it consumes the calendar your DRT application needed. Settlement efforts should run parallel to, never instead of, the statutory challenge.
For banks and purchasers: the decision reinforces that procedural discipline in Sections 13(2), 13(3A) and the sale rules pays off — a clean paper trail converts writ petitions into short hearings on maintainability.
Delhi borrowers face the same doctrine before the Delhi High Court, with DRTs at Delhi handling Section 17 applications. The pattern in the reported cases is consistent: the earlier the statutory remedy is invoked, the more of the property there is left to save.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the statutory remedy against SARFAESI measures?
An application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, within forty-five days of the measure — possession notice, sale notice, or auction — being taken under Section 13(4). The DRT can examine the legality of every step, restore possession, and set aside sales. An appeal lies further to the DRAT under Section 18, subject to pre-deposit.
When will a High Court entertain a SARFAESI writ despite the alternative remedy?
Rarely: where the action is wholly without jurisdiction, violates natural justice at a fundamental level, or challenges the vires of the statute or rules. Hardship, pending settlement talks, or disputes about the account's NPA classification are grievances the DRT can examine, so they do not open the writ door.
Does a pending one-time settlement offer stop the bank from auctioning?
No. A settlement proposal creates no enforceable right until the bank accepts it. Borrowers who wish to protect the property must either comply with the demand, obtain interim relief from the DRT, or complete a sanctioned OTS. Relying on an unaccepted offer while the auction proceeds is a recurring and costly mistake.
What happens to the auction purchaser during such challenges?
A purchaser who has paid the full price acquires a strong equity, and courts protect confirmed sales unless fraud or material irregularity causing substantial injury is shown. In this case the sale certificate was withheld pending litigation, but the dismissal of the writ clears the way for the statutory process to conclude.