Orissa HC Dismisses Borrower's Plea against Punjab National Bank's SARFAESI Sale Notice, Directs to avail SARFAESI Remedy [Read Order]

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a borrower against Punjab National Bank, stating that the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act.

The writ petition was filed by Debasis Panda, challenging a sale notice dated 16.10.2025 issued by the Authorized Officer of Punjab National Bank for the auction of his mortgaged property. The petitioner submitted that he had already made a representation to the bank to settle the outstanding loan dues of approximately Rs. 2.41 lakhs and sought the court's intervention to set aside the sale notice.

A division bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra reiterated the well-settled law that the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act. The bench placed heavy reliance on a series of Supreme Court judgments, including United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, Balkrishna Rama Tarle vs. Phoenix Arc Private Limited.

The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. -Vrs.- Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported in 2023 has deprecated the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, where efficacious alternative remedy has been prescribed in the statute itself. The Court went on to hold as follows:

“16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative.”

The court said that the SARFAESI Act is a 'code unto itself' for the recovery of dues of financial institutions, providing a comprehensive and time-bound remedial framework. It was held that aggrieved borrowers must first approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the Act, and attempts to use writ petitions to circumvent this statutory procedure are deprecated.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not inclined to interfere. However, the court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the bank for a settlement of the loan amount. It was made clear that the court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on the petitioner's representation before the bank. Consequently, the writ petition and any pending applications stood disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates