SARFAESI challenge jurisdiction extends beyond the lending branch and can lie where the mortgaged property is situated.

Jurisdiction for a section 17(1) SARFAESI challenge is not confined to the Debts Recovery Tribunal linked to the lending bank branch. The Delhi HC held that an aggrieved borrower may file before any DRT having jurisdiction under section 19(1) of the RDDBFI Act read with rule 6, including where the mortgaged property is situated. The Court treated section 17(1) proceedings as original proceedings, allowing challenge to the amount claimed and the measures taken, and noted that the statutory scheme contemplates action against the secured asset at the place where the property lies. The writ petition succeeded and the jurisdictional order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can be filed only before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction over the bank branch that disbursed the loan, or also before any Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction under section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with rule 6 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, including the tribunal within whose jurisdiction the mortgaged property is situated.

Analysis: Section 17(1) permits an aggrieved person to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. That jurisdiction is not confined to the place where the lending branch is located, because section 19(1) of the 1993 Act and rule 6 of the 1993 Rules allow recovery proceedings to be initiated in multiple fora, including where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The Court reasoned that the same range of jurisdictional options must govern an appeal under section 17(1), since the secured creditor itself could have proceeded before a tribunal having jurisdiction over the mortgaged property. The Court also relied on sections 13(4)(a) and 14(1) of the 2002 Act to hold that the statute contemplates action in relation to the secured asset at the place where the property is situated, and that the borrower's challenge cannot be restricted to the lending branch alone. The Court further held that proceedings under section 17(1) are original proceedings and not merely execution proceedings, so the borrower may contest the amount claimed and the measures taken.

Conclusion: The appeal under section 17(1) is not confined to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at the bank branch that disbursed the loan; it may be filed before any Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction under section 19(1) of the 1993 Act read with rule 6, including the tribunal where the mortgaged property is situated.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal asserting territorial jurisdiction was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction under section 17(1) of the 2002 Act is coextensive with the jurisdictions available for initiating recovery proceedings under section 19(1) of the 1993 Act read with rule 6 of the 1993 Rules, and is not restricted to the bank branch that advanced the loan.

---