PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETYversusUCO BANK AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4845/2024
Decision Date: 10-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC297

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the High Courts entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Cases related to recovery of dues of sale – Exercise of power u/Art 226 by filing writ petition, in spite of availability of an alternative remedy – Maintainability of the writ petition: Held: Ordinarily the High Court would not entertain a petition u/Art. 226 if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETYversusUCO BANK AND OTHERS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5412024 INSC 297Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the High Courts entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Cases related to recovery of dues of sale – Exercise of power u/Art 226 by filing writ petition, in spite of availability of an alternative remedy – Maintainability of the writ petition: Held: Ordinarily the High Court would not entertain a petition u/Art. 226 if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person