SARFAESI writ petition held premature where statutory objections before the creditor and Tribunal remedy were still available.

A writ petition challenging a SARFAESI notice was held premature because the statutory scheme required the borrower to first respond to the creditor, raise all legal objections, and obtain a reasoned decision before invoking the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court applied the principle in Mardia Chemicals that the borrower should ordinarily exhaust the remedy under the Act before approaching the writ court. Even where allegations of fraud were raised, the existence of this statutory redress made the writ petition not maintainable at the threshold, and it was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging a notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable at the threshold in view of the statutory remedy before the creditor and the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The notice was issued under the SARFAESI framework and the petitioner sought to resist coercive action on the ground that proceedings relating to the debt were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that parallel remedies could not be pursued. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's guidance in Mardia Chemicals and held that the borrower was required to respond to the notice before the creditor, raise all objections in law, and receive a reasoned order. Only thereafter, if still aggrieved, was the remedy before the Tribunal available. Although allegations of fraud were raised, the Court held that the existence of the statutory remedy made the writ petition premature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory scheme provides an opportunity to object before the creditor and a further remedy before the Tribunal, a writ petition challenging the notice is premature and ordinarily not entertainable at the threshold.

---