Extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 is not a rule of compulsion and in the matters of SARFAESI Act, 2002, a very slow and cautious approach has to be adopted and when specific remedy is available writ court should not entertain the writ petitions – Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Rajasthan High Court
Hon’ble High Court holds that firstly on account of the fact that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 specifies specific remedy under Section 17 and Section 35 has an over-riding effect over the other laws; secondly in the light of the judgments of Apex Court rendered titled as United Bank Vs. Satyavati Tandon and Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Viswa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others wherein it has been held that in cases relating to recovery of dues of banks, the secured creditors, the stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such institutions and ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of nation. Thirdly, extra-ordinary powers under Article- 226 is not a rule of compulsion and in the matters of SARFAESI Act, 2002, a very slow and cautious approach has to be adopted and when specific remedy is available writ court should not entertain the writ petitions and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.