HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6269/2025 1. Lajwati Sodwani W/o Late Shri Harish Kumar Sodwani, Aged About 61 Years, R/o House No. 18 E/385, Chopasani Housing Board, Nandawan, Jodhpur-342008, Rajasthan. 2. Yogesh Kumar Sodwani S/o Late Harish Kumar Sodwani, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 18 E/385, Chopasani Housing Board, Nandawan, Jodhpur-342008, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sammaan Capital Limited, Through Authorized Officer, Office No. 9A/b, 1St Floor, Gulandi Bhawan Ratanada, Police Line Road, Jodhpur-342001. 2. Sammaan Capital Limited, Through Authorized Officer, Dlf Corporate Greens Tower, 3A, 2Nd Floor, Sector-74-A, Southern Peripheral Road, Haryana-122004, Gurgaon. 3. Sammaan Capital Limited, Through Authorized Officer, 5Th Floor, Building No. 27, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. 4. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Claim Dept. At 1St, 4Th, 5Th, 6Th Floor, Varun Towers-Ii, Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana-500016. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rachit Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/05/2025 1. Matter comes up on interim application No.01/2025 for dispensation of defect relating to jurisdiction. 2. Office has rightly pointed out the defect that this petition is not maintainable before this Court. 3. Application for waiving of the defect stands rejected. (2 of 3) [CW-6269/2025] 4. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘DRT’). 5. Admittedly, the aforesaid order passed by DRT is appealable under Section 18 of the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). 6. It is settled proposition of law and has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society V/s. UCO Bank and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4845/2024) that the High Court would not entertain such petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if any alternative remedy is available with an aggrieved person under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act. It has been held in para 29 to 33, which reads as under: “29. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 30. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has (3 of 3) [CW-6269/2025] been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. 31. Undisputedly, the present case would not come under any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in the case of Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra). 32. We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court has grossly erred in entertaining and allowing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 33. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the High Courts of the following words of this Court in the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra) since we have come across various matters wherein the High Courts have been entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy: “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 7. Since the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society (supra), the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 8. The stay application all pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/4