Statutory remedy under SARFAESI bars writ challenge to possession notice, and one-time settlement cannot be compelled as of right.

Where an effective statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge a possession notice, especially when the borrower did not timely pursue the remedy before the DRT and no exceptional circumstance was shown. The challenge to the possession notice was therefore not maintainable. A borrower who had transferred the secured asset in breach of mortgage conditions could not compel the bank to extend a one-time settlement, particularly where the scheme excluded fraud, malfeasance, and wilful default. The request for mandamus directing settlement was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the possession notice under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17; (ii) Whether the borrower was entitled to compel the bank to extend the one-time settlement scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the possession notice under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17.

Analysis: The possession notice had been issued long before the writ petition was filed, and the borrower had not pursued the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within time. The statutory mechanism under the SARFAESI Act provides an effective remedy against measures taken under Section 13(4), and writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked when such an alternative remedy exists. The Court also noted the absence of any exceptional circumstance justifying interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the possession notice could not be entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the borrower was entitled to compel the bank to extend the one-time settlement scheme.

Analysis: The bank declined the benefit of the settlement scheme on the ground that the borrower had transferred the secured asset and had thereby acted in breach of the mortgage conditions. The scheme itself excluded cases involving fraud, malfeasance, and wilful default. In these circumstances, the borrower could not claim a legal right to insist on settlement or to compel acceptance of her offer.

Conclusion: The borrower was not entitled to a mandamus directing the bank to grant one-time settlement.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the bank's action and refused the requested writ relief, leaving the borrower without any enforceable claim to challenge the SARFAESI measure or demand settlement as of right.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction, and a borrower who has breached the terms of the secured transaction cannot insist as of right on the grant of one-time settlement.

---