Writ jurisdiction restrained where SARFAESI provides an effective statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that section 17 provides a complete remedial mechanism and that the expression "any person" is wide enough to cover persons affected by a secured creditor's action. Because proceedings were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner was required to pursue that statutory forum rather than bypass it. Applying the principle of self-imposed restraint in bank recovery matters, the HC held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the auction notice under the SARFAESI regime was maintainable in view of the availability of the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked when an effective and expeditious statutory remedy is available. It noted that the SARFAESI Act provides a complete mechanism, including a remedy under section 17, and that the expression "any person" is wide enough to include persons affected by the secured creditor's action. As proceedings were already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner ought to have pursued the statutory forum instead of bypassing it. The Court also relied on the principle of self-imposed restraint in matters concerning recovery by banks and financial institutions.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---