SARFAESI representation and equitable relief principles limit borrower challenges where objections are disputed and material facts are suppressed.

Under the SARFAESI framework, a secured creditor must consider a borrower's representation made after a section 13(2) notice and, if the objection is rejected, communicate reasons for non-acceptance; the text notes that no legal infirmity arises where the alleged representation is disputed or no effective reply was duly received. It also states that discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 136 is equitable and may be declined where the applicant disobeys an interim payment order or suppresses material facts, including encumbrances and third-party claims. The overall position reflected is that compliance and candour are essential for equitable intervention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the secured creditor's action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was vitiated for consideration of the borrower's representation under section 13(2) and the statutory duty to communicate reasons; (ii) whether discretionary relief could be granted when the appellant had failed to comply with the Court's interim order and had suppressed material facts in seeking writ and appellate relief.

Issue (i): Whether the secured creditor's action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was vitiated for non-consideration of the borrower's representation under section 13(2) and the statutory duty to communicate reasons.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the secured creditor, after issuing notice under section 13(2), to consider any representation or objection and, if it is not acceptable, to communicate the reasons for non-acceptance. On the facts, the alleged representation was found to be disputed and belatedly set up, and the record supported the bank's stand that no effective reply had been duly received against the notice. The Court therefore found no legal infirmity in the bank's action on this ground.

Conclusion: The challenge to the secured creditor's action on the ground of non-consideration of representation failed and was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether discretionary relief could be granted when the appellant had failed to comply with the Court's interim order and had suppressed material facts in seeking writ and appellate relief.

Analysis: Relief under Articles 226 and 136 is discretionary and equitable. A party seeking such relief must obey interim orders and approach the Court with full candour. The appellant had not complied with the payment condition imposed by the Court, and the record also disclosed suppression of material facts, including encumbrances and third-party claims affecting the mortgaged property. The Court held that such conduct disentitled the appellant to equitable interference.

Conclusion: Discretionary relief was rightly refused, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The bank's measures and the High Court's refusal to interfere were upheld, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A borrower's objection under section 13(2) must be considered and reasons for non-acceptance communicated, but equitable relief may be refused where the party seeking it is in breach of court orders or suppresses material facts.

---