The petitioner, Challagali Jayakumar, challenged a sale notice dated 15.04.2025 issued by Gandhi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd (3rd respondent) via a Writ of Mandamus before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, alleging that the bank attempted to sell his mortgaged property without registering the mortgage with CERSAI as mandated under Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and without furnishing loan account statements. The bank countered that the mortgage was duly (though belatedly) registered with CERSAI, all procedural steps under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were followed, the loan had been declared NPA, and the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The court found that the belated CERSAI registration did not demonstrably prejudice the petitioner, that the petitioner had not explained why the same grounds could not be raised before the DRT, and that the omission of the earlier 30-day registration requirement worked against the petitioner's contention. Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024) 6 SCC 579 and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, the court emphasised that High Courts should exercise restraint under Article 226 when effective statutory remedies exist under the SARFAESI Act and DRT Act.