Topic
An alternate remedy in Indian law refers to available legal recourse through statutory appeals or civil proceedings that must be exhausted before seeking extraordinary relief like writs under Article 226.
Rajasthan High Court dismisses writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act recovery proceedings, emphasizing Supreme Court's strict stance under Article 226 against entertaining writs in financial debt disputes absent exceptional circumstances. The ruling reaffirms the primacy of alternate remedies in banking recovery actions.
Borrowers cannot challenge Section 14 possession orders via writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Allahabad High Court has firmly held that the exclusive remedy lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing the statutory framework that bars collateral attacks on secured asset enforcement proceedings.
Bombay High Court reaffirms that writ petitions under Article 226 cannot substitute execution proceedings under CPC Order XXI for enforcing civil decrees. Petitioners must pursue statutory remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction, reinforcing the principle of alternate remedy exhaustion in property disputes.
The Bombay High Court holds that when a land records officer exceeds statutory powers by condoning delay without authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the existence of an appeal remedy under Section 247 does not bar a writ petition. This reinforces that ultra vires actions are void ab initio, preserving Article 226 as a vital check on administrative overreach in revenue adjudication.
The Sikkim High Court has ruled that a valid arbitration clause remains enforceable even after contract termination, and a decade-long delay in challenging a fresh RFP bars judicial intervention under Article 226. This reinforces that parties cannot bypass arbitration by sleeping on their rights, setting a clear precedent for infrastructure contractors and public agencies alike.
Bombay HC rules that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is barred when an efficacious alternate remedy (appeal to District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act) exists, unless imminent execution threatens possession. The court granted limited protection to petitioners to approach the District Judge within 15 days, emphasizing exhaustion of statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated if alternate remedies, such as those under Section 340 CrPC, are available. The decision underscores that contempt jurisdiction is a last resort, applicable only when no other legal recourse exists, impacting litigants and practitioners in family and criminal law matters.
Jharkhand High Court rules that delay in filing a statutory appeal under GST laws precludes relief under Article 226, even if the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and later restored. The court rejected the plea of sufficient cause, emphasizing that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot bypass limitation periods.
Bombay High Court holds that writ petitions cannot be used to claim monetary compensation when a civil suit is pending; petitioner must exhaust alternate remedies first.