Synopsis

The appellants (auction purchaser and financial institution) challenged interim orders passed by a learned Single Judge in two writ petitions filed by BPCL and its sub‑lessee (M/s Arora Auto Center). The writ petitions sought to quash securitisation proceedings, including notices under Sections 13(2), 13(4), an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and the auction sale of a secured asset. The Division Bench held that: (i) the Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions as the matters were cognizable by a Division Bench under the roster determined by the Chief Justice; (ii) the writ petitions were not maintainable because the petitioners had already availed the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing securitization applications before the DRT, which were pending; (iii) a writ petition cannot be entertained while the same relief is pending before DRT/DRAT; (iv) a private financial institution/ARC is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The interim orders were quashed, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Coram: Honourable Rajan Roy, J. and Honourable Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

Date of Judgment: 24th April 2026

Citation: Special Appeal No. 420 of 2025 & connected matters (2026:AHC-LKO:29258-DB) (unreported)

Core Law: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Sections 13, 14, 17, 18; Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction); maintainability of writ petitions during pendency of statutory remedy

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(2) (demand notice), Section 13(4) (possession notice), Section 14 (assistance of Magistrate), Section 17 (appeal to DRT), Section 18 (appeal to DRAT)

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction), Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction)

• Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – provisions relating to DRT/DRAT

• Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 – Chapter VIII Rule 5 (special appeal), roster determined by Chief Justice

Key legal principles applied

Writ petition not maintainable when statutory remedy is available and has been availed: The SARFAESI Act provides a complete statutory remedy under Section 17 before the DRT and Section 18 before the DRAT. If a party has already invoked that remedy and proceedings are pending, a writ petition under Article 226 seeking substantially the same relief is not maintainable. The High Court should not entertain such petitions.

High Court cannot interfere during pendency of proceedings before DRT/DRAT: In Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. (1995), the Supreme Court held that a writ petition should not be entertained while an appeal filed under the statutory remedy is pending. The same princ

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.