SARFAESI enforcement against subsequent purchasers cannot be blocked merely because they were not original borrowers.

Subsequent purchasers of a mortgaged property cannot defeat SARFAESI enforcement merely by claiming they are not original borrowers or were not served with notice. The secured asset remains subject to the Act despite later transfers, and the definitions of borrower, secured creditor and secured debt must be read to preserve enforcement after default. The statutory scheme permits action under section 13 against persons who acquire secured assets, while section 17 provides the remedy to any aggrieved person. Writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum to nullify the statutory process where title or property status is disputed.

---

---

Issues: Whether subsequent purchasers of a mortgaged property can resist action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the ground that they are not borrowers and were not served with notice, and whether the statutory remedy lies under section 17 of the Act.

Analysis: The property in question remained a secured asset despite subsequent transfers. The definitions of borrower, secured creditor and secured debt cannot be read in isolation so as to defeat the Act by permitting transfer of the secured asset to third parties after default. The Act authorises enforcement of security interest under section 13, including action against a person who has acquired secured assets, and the statutory scheme provides a remedy of appeal to any aggrieved person under section 17. The Court found the petitioners' challenge to be misconceived and held that disputed questions regarding title and the status of the property were not grounds to nullify the statutory process in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected. The petitioners could not prevent enforcement proceedings merely because they were not the original borrowers, and their remedy, if any, lay in the statutory appellate mechanism.

---