No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS SPA No.637 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. There is no representation for the parties. 2. This intra-court appeal is filed by petitioner feeling aggrieved by final order dated 08.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2146 of 2018. By the said order writ petition filed by petitioner was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. Operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:- “3. On 26.7.2018, when this writ petition came up for hearing, considering the statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has bona fide intention to pay the entire outstanding loan amount, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs only) with the respondent bank to show his bona fide. Although a cheque of this amount was deposited by the petitioner, but learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the said cheque has been dishonoured. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent bank represented by Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal as not only the proceedings have been initiated against him under the Act but even the actual physical possession has also been taken by the bank. Therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.” 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., 2018 (3) SCC 85 and United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors, 2010 (8) SSC 110 has repeatedly held that cases which are cognizable by Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) could not have been entertained by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Since petitioner has a statutory remedy which, is only proper remedy available to petitioner, therefore, dismissal of his writ petition by learned Single Judge is justified. 5. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Special Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay,J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.07.2025 SS