Curative statutory remedy under SARFAESI applies retrospectively, making writ relief unavailable where an alternative tribunal remedy exists.

The amended statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was treated as curative and retrospective, so an aggrieved person, including a tenant or leaseholder, could seek adjudication and restoration of possession before the Debt Recovery Tribunal even in relation to an earlier notice. The filing of a writ petition did not create a vested right to bypass the later-available statutory remedy. The Court also directed exclusion of time spent before it for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. On that basis, the writ was held not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the Tribunal, with interim protection preserved briefly to enable pursuit of the remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition despite the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as amended from 1-9-2016, and whether the amended remedy could be invoked against the impugned notice issued earlier.

Analysis: The amended Section 17 expanded the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to enable an aggrieved person, including a person claiming leasehold or tenancy rights, to seek adjudication and restoration of possession where the secured creditor's measures were contrary to law. The amendment was treated as curative in nature, removing the earlier jurisdictional limitation that had confined restoration relief to the borrower. A curative amendment is retrospective in operation. The filing of a writ petition under Article 226 did not create a vested right to avoid the statutory remedy that later became available. Time spent before the Court was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The petitioner had an effective alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the amended Section 17, and the writ petition was not maintainable on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory forum, while keeping interim protection alive for a limited period to enable pursuit of that remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A curative amendment conferring an enlarged statutory remedy to an aggrieved person operates retrospectively and may be invoked notwithstanding an earlier writ petition, so long as the amendment does not take away a vested right.

---