SARFAESI alternate remedy principle bars writ intervention after Section 13(4) measures when Section 17 appeal is available.

A secured creditor that acquires a debt may invoke the SARFAESI Act independently to recover the same debt, and the existence of an arbitral award with pending execution proceedings does not by itself amount to a legal bar or double recovery. Once measures reach the Section 13(4) stage, the statutory appeal under Section 17 is an efficacious alternate remedy. In that situation, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained, and the aggrieved borrower must pursue the remedy before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against measures taken under the SARFAESI Act when the borrower had an arbitration award and execution proceedings were pending, and whether the availability of an appeal under Section 17 barred interference.

Analysis: The secured creditor, having acquired the debt from the original lender, was entitled to invoke the SARFAESI Act independently for recovery of the same debt. The existence of an arbitral award and pending execution proceedings did not create a legal bar or amount to double recovery. Once the action had reached the stage of Section 13(4), the statute provided an efficacious alternate remedy by way of appeal under Section 17. In such circumstances, the writ court would ordinarily decline to entertain the petition and would require the aggrieved party to pursue the statutory remedy before the Tribunal.

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

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory remedy is available against SARFAESI measures, especially after action under Section 13(4), the High Court should ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---