Premature writ challenge to SARFAESI demand notice fails; SICA cannot be used to stall recovery at the notice stage.

A writ petition against a Section 13(2) SARFAESI notice was held premature because the notice was only a pre-Section 13(4) demand and the statute provides a later remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal if adverse measures are taken. The borrower had already filed objections, and no jurisdictional defect in the bank's action was shown. The court also held that SICA protection could not be invoked at this stage to stall recovery, as the SARFAESI framework governed the enforcement action and had overriding effect. The challenge therefore failed, and interference with the recovery proceedings was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable, and whether the petitioner could claim protection under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to restrain the bank from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: The impugned notice was only a demand/show-cause notice issued at the pre-Section 13(4) stage. The borrower had already submitted objections, and the statutory scheme contemplated further action only if the borrower failed to comply. The Court held that no cause for interference arose at the notice stage, particularly when the Act provides an effective remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal after measures under Section 13(4) are taken. On the interplay between the two enactments, the Court relied on the later and overriding scheme of the SARFAESI Act and the statutory position that the borrower could not, at this stage, invoke SICA to stall recovery proceedings. The Court also noted that the proceedings under SICA had progressed beyond a mere reference and that the bank's action was not shown to be without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the stage of the Section 13(2) notice, the petitioner could not successfully invoke SICA protection to obstruct SARFAESI recovery, and the challenge to the bank's action failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the recovery proceedings and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act if adverse measures were later taken.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition ordinarily does not lie against a mere Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act when the statute itself provides a later remedy against measures taken under Section 13(4), and the borrower cannot use SICA protection to bar such proceedings at the notice stage where the SARFAESI framework governs the recovery action.

---