JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. In Re: CAN No. 923 of 2019 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN No. 923 of 2019, is accordingly allowed. In Re: MAT No. 128 of 2019 with CAN No. 924 of 2019 3. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 4. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 22nd November 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 17231 (W) of 2012, Bishnu Bikash Sarkar and Another vs. ICICI Home Finance Company Limited and Others. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition taking into consideration that the writ petitioners had statutory alternative remedy available and, therefore, found no reason to interfere. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners. 6. The facts of the instant case reveal that the appellants/writ petitioners are aggrieved by the measures taken by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act). According to the learned advocate for the appellants, availability of statutory alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar. 7. We, however, take into consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 , wherein the question of availability of alternative remedy in respect of proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act was an issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a plethora of judgments went on to re-state the observations made in an earlier judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 , relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein-below:- "15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a plethora of judgments went on to re-state the observations made in an earlier judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 , relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein-below:- "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has restored to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, (1964) AIR SC 1419, Titaghur Paper Mills case, (1983) 2 SCC 433 and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." 8. In the facts of the instant case, we do not find any of the exceptions - as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) being present. If we now interfere, notwithstanding the fact that the appellants/writ petitioners have an efficacious statutory alternative remedy available, we are likely to fall into a grave error since such an approach of ours is likely to be squarely disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court based on the observations made in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450 which was also taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore (supra), paragraph 17 whereof is reproduced herein-below:- "17. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450 , observing: (SCC p.463, para 32) "32. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450 , observing: (SCC p.463, para 32) "32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops." 9. In view of the settled position of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred above and considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not find any cogent or justifiable reason to interfere in respect of the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd November 2018, in the instant Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal in the absence of any palpable infirmity or perversity noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. 10. The appeal and the application for stay, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. I agree - Arindam Mukherjee, J.