Icici Bank Limited And Others v. Umakanta Mohapatra And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court was seized of appeals arising from writ petitions filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI). The High Court had granted interim relief to borrowers classified as non-performing assets (NPAs). The present order notes that, despite several earlier Supreme Court decisions discouraging such writ petitions where an alternate statutory remedy exists, the High Court entertained the matters and passed the impugned orders. After condoning delay and granting leave, the Supreme Court proceeded to decide the maintainability of the writ petitions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the writ petitions filed before the High Court against actions taken under SARFAESI were maintainable in view of the statutory remedy provided by the Act and binding Supreme Court precedents.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court underscored that the maintainability of writ petitions challenging SARFAESI measures is a settled question of law. Referring to its recent judgment in State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. and earlier authorities, the Court held that borrowers classified as NPAs must avail themselves of the statutory appellate mechanism provided under SARFAESI rather than invoke Article 226 jurisdiction. It further relied on Dwarikesh Sugar Industries to criticise the High Court for disregarding binding precedent, characterising such conduct as “judicial impropriety” and “judicial adventurism.” Because the foundational writ petitions were not maintainable, every order stemming from them, including the impugned interim reliefs, was declared void.

Holding and Implications

Appeals Allowed; Impugned High Court Orders Set Aside.

All orders passed in the writ proceedings, including interim directions in the specified writ petitions, “must perish” and stand quashed. Pending applications were also disposed of. The decision reinforces the principle that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI actions when statutory remedies exist, but it does not set a new legal precedent beyond reiterating established doctrine.