SARFAESI statutory remedy and writ restraint: writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted once objections are considered under Section 13(3A).

The SARFAESI framework's statutory objection mechanism under Section 13(3A) was treated as an effective alternative remedy where the borrower had received notice under Section 13(2), made a representation, and that representation was considered by the secured creditor. After the statutory process was invoked and rejected, and especially once possession of the secured assets was taken under Section 13(4), writ intervention was not justified. The article notes that the availability and actual use of the prescribed remedy ordinarily weighs against bypassing the statutory scheme through writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the bank's measures under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 13(3A), and whether interference with the High Court's dismissal was warranted.

Analysis: The borrower had an express statutory opportunity to make a representation or objection to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and that representation was in fact made and considered by the secured creditor under Section 13(3A). Once the statutory mechanism was invoked and rejected, and especially after the secured assets were taken possession of under Section 13(4), no substantial basis remained to bypass the statutory scheme by invoking writ jurisdiction. The existence and availing of the alternative remedy made interference with the order under challenge unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the writ petition was rightly not entertained; the decision was against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides a specific statutory mechanism for objection and consideration under Section 13(3A), and that remedy is availed of, writ interference is ordinarily not called for against the secured creditor's action.

---