Writ Jurisdiction

Constitution of India — Articles 32, 226

The power of the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) to issue writs — including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. In debt recovery, the Supreme Court held in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) that a High Court will ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 challenging SARFAESI enforcement where the effective remedy of a Section 17 application before the DRT is available.

In practice, writ jurisdiction is the door borrowers reach for to escape SARFAESI, and it is usually shut. The Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) can issue writs, but in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) the Supreme Court held that a High Court will ordinarily not entertain a writ petition challenging SARFAESI enforcement when the statutory remedy of a Section 17 application before the DRT is available, and that in bank-recovery matters the High Court must insist that the statutory remedies are exhausted. The practical consequence is that a borrower who runs to the High Court instead of the DRT risks dismissal for non-exhaustion of the alternative remedy, losing time and often the disputed property in the interim. The rule is one of discretion: the Court did not list its own exceptions, holding that where the petitioner shows the case falls within an exception recognised in its earlier judgments, the High Court may, after considering all relevant parameters and the public interest, pass an appropriate interim order. For lenders, citing the alternative-remedy bar is a standard and effective response. Well-advised borrowers confirm whether a Section 17 DRT remedy is the proper forum before approaching the writ court.