Bombay High Court: No Writ Where DRT Remedy Is Available
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be entertained when the aggrieved party has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act. The ruling came in a challenge to a bank’s proposed sale of a mortgaged property.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat dismissed the writ petition in Ravijyot Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. v. Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd., decided on August 17, 2026.
The petitioner had challenged the bank’s sale notice dated July 22, 2026, under which the property was proposed to be sold on August 17, 2026. The petitioner sought to prevent the bank from proceeding with the sale, relying principally upon provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The bank opposed the writ petition, pointing out that the petitioner already had a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. More importantly, the petitioner had already approached the DRT earlier and challenged the bank’s first sale notice, with those proceedings still pending.
The High Court found this circumstance significant. Since the petitioner had already invoked the DRT mechanism, the Court held that there was no justification for bypassing the statutory forum and seeking parallel relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench was also not persuaded by the petitioner’s attempt to rely upon the IBC proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioner was essentially a mortgagor seeking to resist enforcement action by a secured creditor, and considered the IBC argument to be an attempt to avoid the recovery process under SARFAESI.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s established principles in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., which caution High Courts against exercising writ jurisdiction where an effective statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act and debt-recovery legislation is available.
The Bench also noted that a Single Judge had earlier refused urgent interim relief in related commercial proceedings, specifically referring to the availability of the DRT remedy. The petitioner nevertheless sought similar protection through the writ jurisdiction.
Another factor weighed against the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed that the NCLT moratorium had not been extended, with this fact emerging only after the respondent produced the NCLT’s July 1, 2026 order. The High Court stressed that a person invoking the equitable writ jurisdiction must approach the Court with clean hands and disclose material facts.
The Court further observed that the respondent was a private bank, and held that the writ petition was also problematic on that ground in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI framework. The ruling once again reinforces the principle that borrowers and mortgagors ordinarily cannot bypass the DRT by invoking Article 226 merely to obtain protection against SARFAESI recovery or auction proceedings.
