Writ jurisdiction limited by SARFAESI remedy where disputed facts bar interference with recovery measures and loan classification.

An Article 226 writ will ordinarily not be entertained against SARFAESI recovery action where an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 is available and the dispute turns on contested facts. The petition challenged NPA classification and sought directions to pursue an ECGC claim and regularise the loan account, but the controversy involved disputed matters such as export bill realisation and repayment conduct. The Court found no basis to compel the bank to pursue the claim or to grant the requested writ relief, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable for those remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether the petitioner was entitled to directions for pursuance of the ECGC claim and for regularization or upgradation of the loan account.

Analysis: The petitioner sought writ relief against classification of the account as non-performing and against the consequent recovery action, but the dispute involved contested facts regarding realization of export bills, the bank's claim before ECGC, and the petitioner's repayment conduct. The availability of a remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 weighed against interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The account had already been classified as NPA, recovery measures had commenced, and the Court found no basis to compel the bank to pursue the ECGC claim or to direct regularization of the account in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for grant of the claimed reliefs and the petitioner was not entitled to the directions sought.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed because the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy and the matters raised were not fit for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI framework and the controversy turns on disputed questions of fact, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked to obtain relief against recovery measures.

---