JUDGMENT : Vikram Nath, J. 1. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nachiket Dave and Shri Amit Bhandari, learned counsels for the appellant and Shri Siddhartha Samal, learned counsel for the respondent bank. 2. The original writ petitioners Unnati Inorganics Private Limited have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10779 of 2020, Unnati Inorganics Private Limited vs. Union of India through the Secretary and another, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 3. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate raised the following submissions before us : i. The learned Single Judge committed error in not issuing appropriate directions to the respondent bank to accept the proposal of One Time Settlement/ a compromise offer tendered by the petitioner in the larger interest of the bank and the petitioner wherein the petitioner had offered a higher amount then what was received in the auction proceedings. ii. The learned Single Judge erred in not issuing appropriate directions to the respondent bank to take an appropriate decision in the light of the two circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. iii. The learned Single Judge erred in accepting the auction sale proceedings wherein the offer of the bidder in the second round of the tender notice where there was just a single offer, without the consent of the borrower (petitioner – appellant) and thus committed breach of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, resulting not only into grave and irreparable loss to the appellant but also serious miscarriage of justice. iv. The respondent bank reduced the reserved price by almost Rs.3 Crores within a period of 1 year and the same was on much lower side than the actual value of the secured assets, value of which was assessed at Rs.21 Crores approximately at the time of taking the loan in 2014. This has resulted into heavy financial loss and hardship not only to the petitioner – appellant but also to the bank as it has not been able to recover its full dues outstanding against the petitioner – appellant. This has resulted into heavy financial loss and hardship not only to the petitioner – appellant but also to the bank as it has not been able to recover its full dues outstanding against the petitioner – appellant. v. Lastly that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of alternative remedy when such bar is not absolute bar but is at the discretion of the Court and in given circumstances under settled law, the petition ought to have been entertained on merits and did not deserve to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 4. On the other hand, Shri Siddharth Samal, learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted as under : i. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is very well-reasoned, just and valid. ii. The learned Single Judge has dealt with all the above points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. iii. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with all the case-laws relied upon by both the sides and the findings recorded are strictly in accordance to law. iv. The appellant has been trying to play hide and seek throughout. It was not bonafide interested in clearing the dues of the bank. The offer of One Time Settlement and the subsequent compromise offer were all vague and only an eye-wash. They were also not in accordance to law or settled norms and in appropriate format. v. The offers given were also much below the threshold value which could be determined as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India as also the Bank for One Time Settlement. vi. The appellant having received the notice under Section 13(2) way back in October, 2017, did not make any effort to genuinely clear all the dues or to come up with a concrete settlement plan but only trying to somehow or the other delay the proceedings. vii. The appellant had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by way of an application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, but subsequently had not pressed the same. viii. The appellant having failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy, could not raise disputed questions of fact before this Court under its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. viii. The appellant having failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy, could not raise disputed questions of fact before this Court under its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. We have considered the submissions and have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge dealt with all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in great detail and we find that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based upon sound reasoning and on the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. There is little scope rather no scope at all for us to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge as no perversity or manifest error of law has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 6. We do not find any justification to repeat the same arguments and record same findings after dealing with the judgments which have already been done by the learned Single Judge in accordance to law. The judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of.