SARFAESI possession under Section 14 is part of Section 13(4) enforcement, and challenges belong before the Tribunal.

Possession-related action taken through Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is treated as part of the measures under Section 13(4), because Section 14 only provides the mode for implementing secured creditor possession after the Section 13 enforcement steps. The borrower may therefore challenge the legality of that action before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Where that statutory remedy is available, the writ court should not decide the merits of the Section 14 action, as the Tribunal is the proper forum to test the legality and propriety of the enforcement measures. The High Court's merits adjudication was therefore set aside and the matter restored to the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether action taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act amounts to a measure taken under Section 13(4) of that Act; (ii) whether the High Court ought to have entered into the legality of the Section 14 action when the statutory remedy under Section 17 was available.

Issue (i): whether action taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act amounts to a measure taken under Section 13(4) of that Act.

Analysis: The enforcement scheme under Chapter III permits the secured creditor to proceed after service of notice under Section 13(2), consideration of objections under Section 13(3A), and thereafter to adopt one or more measures under Section 13(4). Taking possession is one such measure. The manner in which possession is obtained through the District Magistrate under Section 14 is only a mode of implementing that measure. The distinction between symbolic and physical possession does not control the statutory scheme. The statutory rules also operate in aid of the same enforcement process.

Conclusion: Yes. Action under Section 14 forms part of the measures under Section 13(4), and the borrower may challenge its legality before the Tribunal under Section 17.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court ought to have entered into the legality of the Section 14 action when the statutory remedy under Section 17 was available.

Analysis: Since Section 17 provides the forum to question whether any measure under Section 13(4), including possession-related action taken through Section 14, is in accordance with the Act and the Rules, the writ court should not decide that issue on merits when the statutory appellate remedy remains available. The Tribunal is the proper forum to test legality and propriety of the enforcement steps.

Conclusion: No. The High Court should not have adjudicated the legality of the Section 14 action on merits in the writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the High Court and the Tribunal were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits after notice and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession-related action taken through Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is a measure falling within Section 13(4), and challenges to such action must ordinarily be examined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 rather than decided on merits in writ jurisdiction.

---