Patna High Court Reiterates Writ Petition Under Article 226 Not Maintainable When Effective Alternative Remedy Exists Under the SARFAESI Act

Case Overview:

On 29 July 2026, the Patna High Court decided a writ petition filed by M/S Jagdamba Enterprises and its proprietor against the Union of India, Canara Bank and other authorities. The petitioners requested the Court to cancel a notice issued by Canara Bank, release their mortgaged property and award compensation, claiming that the bank had wrongfully continued the mortgage. Before considering the merits of the case, the Court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that since the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.

Also Read– Top 5 Landmark Allahabad High Court Judgments of June 2026

Facts:

M/S Jagdamba Enterprises is a small-scale stone crusher industry located in Sitamarhi, Bihar. The enterprise had obtained financial assistance from Canara Bank by mortgaging certain immovable properties. Later, the petitioners claimed that the bank continued to keep their properties under mortgage even though they believed there was no legal justification for doing so.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought to quash the notice issued by Canara Bank, release the mortgaged properties and grant compensation for the alleged illegal mortgage. The respondents in the case included the Union of India, the Reserve Bank of India, Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda and other concerned authorities.

The respondents argued that disputes relating to recovery proceedings and mortgaged assets are governed by the SARFAESI Act. Since the Act provides an effective statutory remedy, they submitted that the petitioners should approach the appropriate forum instead of filing a writ petition before the High Court.

Also Read – Top 5 Landmark Patna High Court Judgments of June 2026

Court’s Observations / Reasoning:

The High Court first considered whether the writ petition was maintainable. It observed that the settled legal position is that the High Court should not ordinarily exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective statutory remedy is available.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, which held that High Courts should avoid entertaining writ petitions in matters relating to recovery of bank dues where a statutory remedy exists. The Supreme Court had emphasised that laws governing recovery proceedings provide a complete mechanism for resolving such disputes.

The Court also referred to Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd. (2024) 2 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court reiterated that parties challenging actions taken under the SARFAESI Act should first approach the forums created under the Act instead of directly filing writ petitions.

Further, the Court relied upon PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Others (2024 INSC 297), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

Considering these binding precedents, the Patna High Court held that the petitioners had an effective and adequate alternative remedy under the law. Therefore, it found that the writ petition was not maintainable.

Decision:

The Patna High Court declined to entertain the writ petition and held that the petitioners should pursue the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act before the competent authority.

However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. It also directed that while considering the matter, the competent authority should take into account the issue of limitation, as the writ petition had remained pending before the High Court since 2023.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, and all pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

Conclusion:

The judgment highlights the importance of the doctrine of alternative remedy in Indian constitutional law. It reiterates that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 should be exercised only in exceptional situations and not when a complete statutory mechanism is available for resolving disputes.

The Court reaffirmed that the SARFAESI Act provides a specialised and effective procedure for addressing banking and recovery disputes. Therefore, parties must first exhaust the remedies provided under the Act before approaching the High Court. At the same time, the Court protected the interests of the petitioners by allowing them to approach the competent authority and directing that the issue of limitation be considered fairly. This judgment reinforces judicial discipline and ensures that specialised statutory forums are utilised before invoking constitutional remedies.

Case Title: M/S Jagdamba Enterprises (Stone Chips Crusher Small Scale Industry) & Another v. Union of India & Others.