Alternative remedy under SARFAESI bars writ challenge where Section 17 appeal is available against recovery measures.

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging SARFAESI recovery measures taken after Section 13(4) was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 17. The Court applied the settled alternative remedy principle, holding that where the Act provides a direct appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal against such measures, the aggrieved party must first pursue that forum. In recovery matters, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked when the statutory mechanism can address the grievance. The petitioners were therefore relegated to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act should be entertained when an effective statutory appeal is available under Section 17 of the Act.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against the bank's action in the SARFAESI recovery process after the stage of Section 13(4). The statutory scheme provides an appellate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 to any person aggrieved by such measures. The availability of that remedy required the petitioner to first pursue the statutory forum, and the High Court declined to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction. The Court applied the settled principle that where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, especially in recovery matters, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

---