Alternative remedy and recovery publicity under SARFAESI upheld, with challenges to notices and photograph publication rejected.

Recovery notices issued under the SARFAESI Act were not interfered with in writ jurisdiction because the borrower had an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the challenge was rejected on that ground. Publication of photographs of borrower-defaulters was treated as a permissible recovery measure and was not found to be arbitrary, illegal, or defamatory, so that challenge also failed. The writ petition was therefore held to disclose no ground for interference against either the recovery notices or the publication of photographs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand notices issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were liable to be quashed in view of the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal; (ii) Whether publication of photographs of borrower-defaulters was impermissible, arbitrary, or defamatory and liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the demand notices issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were liable to be quashed in view of the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The notices were issued in exercise of powers under the securitisation statute, and the petitioner had a statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the same enactment. In the presence of that efficacious alternative remedy, no case for interference with the recovery notices was made out in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the demand notices was rejected and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether publication of photographs of borrower-defaulters was impermissible, arbitrary, or defamatory and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Publication of the photographs of borrowers who were defaulters was held to be a permissible mode of recovery pressure and was not treated as arbitrary or illegal. The publication was also not found to be defamatory.

Conclusion: The challenge to the publication of photographs failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose grounds for interference, and the borrower's challenge to both the recovery notices and the photograph publication was rejected.

---