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

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will ordinarily not be exercised against SARFAESI measures taken under Section 13(4) where an efficacious statutory appeal lies under Section 17. The Gujarat HC held that the challenged recovery action could be adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and no recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule was shown because the impugned action was not demonstrated to be without jurisdiction. The petition was therefore not maintainable at that stage, and the aggrieved party was relegated to the statutory appellate forum.

---

---

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

Analysis: The petition assailed measures taken for recovery of dues after notice under Section 13(2) and action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the Act provides an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal against measures taken under Section 13(4). The Court further held that the case did not fall within any exceptional category warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction, since the impugned action was not shown to be without jurisdiction and the dispute was amenable to adjudication before the specialised statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the petitioners were relegated to the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court will ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless a recognised exception is established.

---