Statutory remedy under SARFAESI section 17 bars writ relief where enforcement measures are disputed

A secured creditor's recourse to the Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is part of enforcement after measures under section 13(4), and the borrower generally has an efficacious statutory remedy under section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Where the dispute concerns whether the measures under section 13(4) comply with the Act and rules, and disputed questions of fact are involved, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ relief under Articles 226 and 227. The statutory appeal was therefore treated as the appropriate remedy in place of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against action taken under section 14 pursuant to measures under section 13(4).

Analysis: Section 13 of the Act permits enforcement of security interest without court intervention, and section 13(4) authorises possession and other recovery measures. Section 14 enables the secured creditor to seek assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate for taking possession, and such recourse is part of the enforcement process after the stage of section 13(4). Section 17 provides a specific appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to examine whether the measures under section 13(4) were in accordance with the Act and the rules. The Court held that the remedy under section 17 was efficacious and that, in the circumstances, especially where disputed questions of fact were also involved, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked.

Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petition failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a secured creditor's action under section 14 is taken in aid of measures under section 13(4), the borrower has an efficacious statutory remedy under section 17, and the High Court should ordinarily decline writ relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

---