SARFAESI remedial jurisdiction and remand power upheld; agreement of sale did not defeat the bank's mortgage rights.

The appellate tribunal's power to pass such orders as it thinks fit under the SARFAESI framework was read broadly enough to include remand, so the remand order was valid. A person affected by enforcement measures could invoke the Section 17 remedy even if the person held only an agreement of sale, so maintainability was upheld. An agreement of sale executed by the borrower was not rendered void under Section 13(13); it remained subject to the bank's existing mortgage rights and could not defeat them. The writ petition therefore failed on the substantive issues, and expeditious disposal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had power to remand the matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 20(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (ii) whether a person affected by the measures taken under the Act could invoke Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 despite holding only an agreement of sale; and (iii) whether an agreement of sale executed by the borrower could be declared null and void under Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had power to remand the matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 20(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellate tribunal's power to pass such orders as it thinks fit, including confirming, modifying, or setting aside the order under appeal, was held wide enough to include remand. The remand was therefore not treated as illegal or without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The remand power existed and the challenge to the remand order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a person affected by the measures taken under the Act could invoke Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 despite holding only an agreement of sale.

Analysis: The right under Section 17 was treated as available to any affected party. The fact that the applicant held an agreement of sale did not, by itself, take away the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability under Section 17 was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether an agreement of sale executed by the borrower could be declared null and void under Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: An agreement of sale was held not to be prohibited by Section 13(13). Such an agreement would remain subject to the existing mortgage in favour of the bank and could not curtail the bank's rights.

Conclusion: The prayer to treat the agreement of sale as null and void was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all substantive grounds, and the appellate tribunal's remand order was upheld with a direction for expeditious disposal by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate tribunal's statutory power to pass orders as it thinks fit includes remand, an affected party may invoke the Act's remedial jurisdiction, and an agreement of sale subject to an existing mortgage is not void under Section 13(13).

---