Alternate statutory remedy under SARFAESI bars writ relief, and a fresh notice is not invalid absent statutory prohibition.

A writ challenge to SARFAESI measures is generally not maintainable where the borrower has an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against action under Section 13(4), and that alternate remedy bars recourse to writ jurisdiction on the facts noted. The article also states that a secured creditor is not legally barred from issuing a fresh notice under Section 13(2) merely because an earlier notice and objections existed, where the statute contains no prohibition and the later notice was issued after intervening proceedings had been resolved. The petitioner's challenge therefore failed on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging measures under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable when the borrower has an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (ii) Whether the secured creditor is barred from issuing a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act after an earlier notice and objections, in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging measures under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable when the borrower has an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The borrower's grievance arose from steps taken under the SARFAESI Act, and the statutory scheme provides a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against action under Section 13(4). The Court treated that remedy as efficacious and noted that the borrower himself had asserted resort to that forum. In such circumstances, invocation of writ jurisdiction was not justified.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of alternate statutory remedy, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the secured creditor is barred from issuing a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act after an earlier notice and objections, in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court found no statutory prohibition against issuance of a fresh notice. The earlier proceedings had remained in abeyance in view of pending litigation and recovery proceedings, and the later notice was issued after the Tribunal had disposed of the rival claims. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The fresh notice was held not to be legally barred on the facts of the case, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the SARFAESI measures failed in view of the available Tribunal remedy and the absence of any legal bar to the subsequent action by the secured creditor.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a borrower has an effective statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI framework, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to challenge the secured creditor's measures, and a fresh notice is not invalid merely because an earlier notice had been issued if the facts show no statutory prohibition.

---