PHR Invent Educational Society Vs UCO Bank And Others (Supreme Court of India)
SC explains Exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy
The recent Supreme Court judgment in PHR Invent Educational Society Vs UCO Bank And Others sheds light on exceptions to the rule under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, which generally precludes the High Court from entertaining a petition when an alternative remedy is available. The case underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226, while also delineating exceptions to this rule.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Dr. M.V. Ramana Rao (referred to as ‘the Borrower’), challenging the auction of mortgaged properties by UCO Bank (the ‘Respondent-Bank’) under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the High Court entertained the petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The key contention before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
Overview of the Judgment:
