United Bank of India v Satyawati Tondon

• The respondent had guaranteed a loan taken by another person for opening a colour lab. When the loan was not repaid, the bank issued notices under S.13(2) and S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The guarantor filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which, without considering the bank's plea of an alternative remedy under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act, restrained the bank from acting on the S.13(4) notice.

1. Whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition when an effective remedy was available before the DRT under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act.

• The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside. The Court traced the history of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act, including the pendency of bank recovery cases that led to them, and held that the High Court was not justified in injuncting the bank. It expressed the hope that High Courts would exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.

The rule of self-restraint against entertaining writ petitions where an effective alternative remedy exists applies with greater force in matters of recovery of public money by banks, since the statutes create a complete machinery for speedy recovery.