SARFAESI enforcement remains available despite pending arbitration, with Section 37 making the remedy cumulative.

Pendency of arbitration proceedings did not prevent a secured creditor from invoking the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The statutory recovery remedy was treated as independent of any award, decree or certificate, and Section 37 was read as making it cumulative with other laws. The principle of election of remedies was held inapplicable because the Act provides an additional, non-repugnant mode of enforcement. Borrowers retained the right to challenge the measures under Section 17 of the Act. The measures under the Act were therefore upheld notwithstanding the pending arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the secured creditor could invoke measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 despite the pendency of arbitration proceedings and remand by the Co-operative Tribunal.

Analysis: The pendency of arbitration did not bar recourse to the statutory recovery mechanism under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The secured creditor's right to proceed under that Act is independent of any award, decree, or certificate, and Section 37 makes the remedy cumulative with other laws. The principle of election of remedies did not apply because the statutory remedy under the Act operates as an additional and non-repugnant mode of enforcement. The borrowers were left free to pursue their remedies under Section 17 of the Act against the measures taken.

Conclusion: The measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were held to be permissible notwithstanding the pending arbitration proceedings, and the challenge was rejected.

---