SARFAESI remedies remain available after a civil decree where the debt and secured liability continue to subsist

A civil decree for recovery does not cease to be a "debt" or secured liability for purposes of SARFAESI, and the bank may still invoke measures under the 2002 Act after obtaining a preliminary decree. The classification of the account as a non-performing asset and the statutory definition of "default" supported recourse to Section 13(4), while Section 37 preserves SARFAESI as additional to other laws. The borrower also had an effective alternative remedy under Section 17, so the writ challenge to the possession and sale notices was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bank could invoke measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 after obtaining a preliminary decree in the civil suit, and whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17.

Analysis: The amount recoverable under a civil decree continues to fall within the definition of "debt" under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the existence of a decree does not extinguish the character of the liability as a secured debt. The statutory definition of "default" under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, read with the Bank's classification of the account as a non-performing asset, justified recourse to the Act. Section 37 makes it clear that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws in force. The borrower also had an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 to challenge the measures taken under Section 13(4).

Conclusion: The Bank's possession notice and sale notice were not illegal, ultra vires, or unconstitutional, and the writ petition was not maintainable.

---