Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to SARFAESI measures, leaving borrowers to pursue the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

A writ petition challenging notices and measures under the SARFAESI Act was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17. The High Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, particularly in recovery proceedings under special statutes. It held that the petitioners could raise all factual and legal objections before the Tribunal, and therefore it did not examine the merits of the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The petition assailed notices issued under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court noted that section 17(1) provides a statutory appeal to any person aggrieved by measures taken under section 13(4). Relying on settled principles that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, especially in recovery matters under special statutes, the Court held that the petitioners could raise all factual and legal contentions before the Tribunal. The Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and did not examine the merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed because the petitioners had an effective alternative statutory remedy under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

---