SARFAESI alternate-remedy rule bars writ interference where Section 17 appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.

Under the SARFAESI Act, a writ petition challenging enforcement measures taken in the course of Section 13 proceedings is ordinarily not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal lies under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court noted that the appeal remedy extends to measures taken after Section 13(4), and that the alternate-remedy rule applies with greater rigour in recovery matters under special enactments. The petitioners were relegated to the Tribunal to raise all available objections, and writ interference was declined because the statutory remedy was available and adequate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The impugned action arose from notices issued in the course of enforcement proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The statutory scheme provides an aggrieved borrower with an appeal under Section 17 against measures taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and the remedy is available even against post-Section 13(4) measures. In matters involving recovery dues under such special enactments, the rule of alternate remedy applies with greater rigour, and the writ court ordinarily declines interference when an effective statutory remedy is available. The petitioners were, therefore, relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to raise all contentions available to them.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 against enforcement measures taken under the Act.

---