The Karnataka High Court ruled that borrowers aggrieved by actions under the SARFAESI Act must pursue remedies under the Act itself, rather than seeking writs under Article 226.
Karnataka HC Directs Aggrieved Borrower to Follow SARFAESI Act Remedies
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that individuals aggrieved by measures under the SARFAESI Act must utilize the statutory remedy available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in property and financial disputes.
The court recognized that the SARFAESI Act outlines specific paths for aggrieved parties and posited that bypassing these established routes through general writ petitions could dilute the intended efficacy of the Act. This firm stance highlights the judiciary’s preference for statutory order over constitutional invocation in financial recovery processes.
This ruling is a pertinent reminder for practitioners dealing with financial litigation that thorough knowledge of the SARFAESI framework and adherence to its provisions is critical. It ensures not only compliance with legal guidelines but also better positioning in recovery actions.
Citations
- Karnataka HC Order (2026)
