SARFAESI reply and writ remedy: unanswered request for time did not defeat recovery measures, and Section 17 was the proper forum.

A borrower's reply to a Section 13(2) SARFAESI demand notice that merely sought time to pay, without disputing liability, did not invalidate the secured creditor's measures; the omission to expressly deal with such a reply caused no prejudice in the circumstances. An order under Section 14 was treated as part of the measures under Section 13(4) and was held challengeable before the DRT under Section 17. Because an effective statutory remedy was available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not entertained and the petition failed on maintainability as well as on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-consideration of the borrower's reply to the demand notice under the SARFAESI Act invalidated the measures taken by the secured creditor; (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17.

Issue (i): Whether non-consideration of the borrower's reply to the demand notice under the SARFAESI Act invalidated the measures taken by the secured creditor.

Analysis: The reply to the Section 13(2) notice did not dispute the liability or the demand and only sought time to pay the dues. The borrower had repeatedly sought time to settle the account and had not honoured the undertaking given before the Court. In such circumstances, the omission to deal with the reply did not prejudice the borrower so as to invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The contention based on Section 13(3-A) was rejected and does not help the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17.

Analysis: An order under Section 14 is part of the measures taken under Section 13(4) and is challengeable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. The statutory remedy is efficacious and effective, and the borrower, being an aggrieved person, ought to have pursued that remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be entertained where the statute provides a complete redressal mechanism, especially in recovery matters.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the SARFAESI measures failed both on merits and on maintainability, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---