Debasis Panda Vs Authorized Officer (Orissa High Court)
The petitioner challenged a sale notice dated 16 October 2025 issued by the Bank concerning outstanding dues of ₹2,41,446.12. He submitted that he had already filed a representation seeking settlement of the loan. The Court examined several Supreme Court decisions—Satyawati Tondon, Balkrishna Rama Tarle, CELIR LLP v. Bafna Motors, and South Indian Bank v. Naveen Mathew Philip—which consistently held that High Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The judgments emphasized that Section 17 provides a complete, expeditious, and effective mechanism for borrowers, guarantors, or affected persons to challenge actions taken under Sections 13(4) or 14, and that the High Court must ordinarily insist on exhaustion of statutory remedies.
The Supreme Court in Satyawati Tondon held that SARFAESI proceedings and the remedies before the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal form a self-contained code and that High Courts must refrain from interfering in matters involving the recovery of public dues. In Balkrishna Rama Tarle, it was clarified that proceedings under Section 14 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate are ministerial, not adjudicatory, and disputes regarding possession of secured assets must be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. In Bafna Motors, the Supreme Court explained the limits of a borrower’s right of redemption under unamended and amended Section 13(8). In South Indian Bank, the Court criticized attempts to bypass statutory forums by approaching the High Court and reiterated that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely for considering settlement offers.
