Writ jurisdiction under SARFAESI notice is limited; Article 226 relief is ordinarily unavailable before Section 13(4) action.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held ordinarily not maintainable against a notice under the SARFAESI Act's Section 13(2), because the notice is only a pre-measure step inviting the borrower to discharge liability and does not itself trigger the statutory right of appeal. The Court noted that the borrower can raise limited objections to the notice, and any measure taken under Section 13(4) may be challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal with further recourse under Section 18. While Article 226 remains available, interference at this stage is generally unwarranted except for want of jurisdiction, arbitrariness, mala fides, or gross miscarriage of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before any measure under Section 13(4) was taken, and whether the High Court should interfere at that stage.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Act was examined as a special mechanism for enforcement of security interest without intervention of court or tribunal. The right of appeal under Section 17 was held to arise only after one of the measures specified in Section 13(4) had actually been taken. The notice under Section 13(2) was treated as a pre-measure step giving the borrower an opportunity to discharge liability, and not as an appealable measure by itself. The Court further noted that the borrower was not remediless because objections could be raised to the notice on limited grounds, and wrongful action under Section 13(4) could be challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal with further recourse under Section 18. While the constitutional power under Article 226 was not ousted, the Court held that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised so as to defeat the purpose of the special enactment, except in cases of want of jurisdiction, arbitrariness, mala fides, or gross miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage on the facts of the case, and the High Court declined to interfere in the proposed action under the Act.

---