CourtSupreme Court of India
Decision2010
CollectionBanking, Recovery & DRT
FormatCRUX Case Note
The Crux
Where the recovery statute supplies an effective specialist remedy, High Courts should ordinarily insist that the statutory route be used before invoking Article 226.
What the Court held
The Supreme Court cautioned against routine writ interference in recovery proceedings where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious remedy before the DRT and appellate forum.
Why it matters
The judgment is central to forum strategy in secured recovery matters and to assessing when exceptional writ intervention may still be justified.
CRUX practice note
This note isolates the proposition most likely to matter in practice. The precise ratio, factual limits and subsequent treatment of the authority should always be checked against the judgment itself before professional reliance.
Official source
The link below is to the Supreme Court of India’s official website or judgment repository.
Official Supreme Court source
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. — official court source
The judgment text remains controlling. This CRUX note is an editorial summary for general information.
This Insight is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.