Alternative remedy under SARFAESI bars writ challenge to possession measures; borrower must proceed under Section 17.

A writ petition challenging possession taken after notice under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because Section 17 provides an effective statutory remedy. The Court treated the post-Section 13(4) possession measure as one that can be questioned before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, including objections to the notice, possession proceedings, and the officer's authority. Applying the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked where an alternative remedy exists, the Court declined to entertain the petition and left the borrower to pursue relief under Section 17.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging possession taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of that Act.

Analysis: The challenge related to measures taken after issuance of notice under Section 13(4) and taking of possession. The Court held that such post-Section 13(4) action is covered by the statutory appellate remedy under Section 17. It noted that the petitioner could raise all factual and legal objections before the Tribunal, including objections regarding the notice, possession proceedings, and authority of the officer. In view of the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked when an effective alternative remedy is available, the Court declined to entertain the petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected in favour of the respondent bank, leaving the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 17 of the Act.

---