Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – ss.13(4), 17, 18 – Grant of loans by financial institution – Failure of the borrower to pay the dues – Case of borrower that he was desirous to pay loan amount, as such sought regularization of the loan amount but bank failed to consider the same – Writ petition u/Art.226 by borrower – Interim order passed, staying further proceedings at the stage of s.13(4), on deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- – Appeal thereagainst dismissed by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: In financial matters grant of ex- parte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order – Such loan are granted from public money generated at tax payers’ expense – Timely repayment cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation – It is the solemn duty of the court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection – Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception – High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the borrower and without granting opportunity to the bank to contest the maintainability of the writ petition – Opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/ modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to decline interference – Thus, the impugned orders are unsustainable, and set aside – Constitution of India – Art.226 – Alternative Remedy.