Alternative statutory remedy under SARFAESI bars writ jurisdiction when the Debt Recovery Tribunal can examine the dispute.

A writ petition challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy under section 17 was available and had already been invoked before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal was competent to examine the dispute, including issues concerning leasehold rights and valuation, and the amended section 17 permitted consideration of such matters. In the absence of any shown jurisdictional error, the High Court would ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction in recovery proceedings by banks and financial institutions. The petition was therefore rejected, with the merits left for adjudication before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's order under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under section 17.

Analysis: The petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal after symbolic possession was taken under section 13(4). The Tribunal was competent to adjudicate the dispute, including questions relating to leasehold rights and valuation, and the amended section 17 enabled consideration of such issues. In matters concerning recovery by banks and financial institutions, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, and no jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected on the ground that the alternative remedy had already been availed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the petition and left all merits open for adjudication before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI framework is available and already invoked, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction absent a jurisdictional error.

---