[2025:RJ-JP:20509-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 531/2025 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. ----Appellants 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 Appellant(s) : Mr. Rachit Sharma with Mr. Hammant Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Judgment 15/05/2025 1. Heard on admission. [2025:RJ-JP:20509-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-531/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has mechanically dismissed the petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy without examining the exceptional grounds raised in the petition. It is argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4845/2024) decided on 10.04.2024 relying upon certain decisions has carved out exception when a Writ Court may entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite existence of an alternative remedy. He would submit that present is a case where the learned Tribunal while passing the order has not correctly applied the provisions of law and the liability aspect under the scheme of insurance. He would further submit that though in the matter of sale of immovable property, secured assets through the process of auction, Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires that the authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured assets, the Tribunal exercised that power granting thirty days of notice. 3. None of the grounds raised by the petitioners-appellants pertain to any of the exceptional clauses, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment in PHR Invent Educational Society (supra). All the arguments which have been raised in this appeal pertain to correctness, propriety and legality aspect which could well be taken in statutory appeal which statutory remedy is available under the law. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that all the grounds [2025:RJ-JP:20509-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-531/2025] which have been raised by the petitioners-appellants in the writ petition shall be available to the appellants in appeal that may be filed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ NAVAL KISHOR /170