Primacy of alternate remedies

This ruling reinforces the well-entrenched boundary of writ jurisdiction in banking and recovery disputes. 

The Court refused to entertain a wide-ranging challenge involving NPA classification, alleged wrongful dispossession, OTS negotiations, and compensation claims, holding that such issues are fact-intensive and already subject to parallel proceedings under SARFAESI, DRT, and IBC frameworks.

It further clarified that courts cannot compel banks to grant OTS and that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies. The decision underscores judicial restraint and reiterates that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for appellate or fact-finding forums.