SARFAESI writ maintainability yields to the statutory remedy under section 17 after possession proceedings begin.

Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not maintainable against SARFAESI recovery measures once the secured creditor has proceeded beyond section 13(4) and invoked section 14 for physical possession, because an efficacious statutory remedy lies under section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The rule of self-restraint requires the aggrieved party to pursue that statutory appeal in preference to a writ petition in recovery matters. The writ petition was therefore dismissed, with the petitioners left to avail the remedy under section 17.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging action taken under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under section 17.

Analysis: The property-related recovery measures had already reached the post-section 13(4) stage, and the secured creditor had invoked section 14 for physical possession. In such circumstances, an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 was available as an efficacious statutory remedy. The settled rule of self-restraint in writ jurisdiction requires the party to pursue the remedy provided by the statute, especially in matters arising from recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI framework.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy under section 17.

---