Alternative statutory remedy bars direct writ challenge to a SARFAESI sale certificate where Section 17 is available.

A direct writ challenge to a SARFAESI sale certificate was held not maintainable where the borrower had not first exhausted the statutory remedy under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court reiterated that measures taken in SARFAESI recovery proceedings are ordinarily to be challenged through the Act's specialised remedy, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked as a first resort when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The challenge to the sale certificate was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the sale certificate issued in SARFAESI proceedings was maintainable without first exhausting the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to assail the sale certificate directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenged action arose out of measures taken in recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI regime. The statutory scheme provides an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, and the writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily to be invoked when such remedy has not been pursued. The Court relied on the settled principle that High Courts should not entertain direct writ challenges to SARFAESI when the borrower has an available appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for failure to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy, and the challenge to the sale certificate was rejected.

---