SARFAESI alternative remedy principle bars writ challenge where Section 17 provides an effective Tribunal remedy

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where SARFAESI measures had been taken and an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 was available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal's remedy covers examination of the legality of measures under Section 13(4), reception of evidence, and restoration of possession if the secured creditor's action is found unlawful. Applying the settled alternative-remedy principle, the court relegated the petitioners to the statutory forum and noted that it had not examined the merits of the NPA classification, which could still be raised before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could invoke writ jurisdiction against measures taken under the SARFAESI Act when an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 was available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The dispute arose from action taken by the secured creditor under Sections 13(2), 13(3-A) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The statutory scheme under Section 17 provides a complete remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, including examination of the legality of the measures taken under Section 13(4), reception of evidence, and power to restore possession if the action is found unlawful. The availability of that remedy, together with the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, justified relegating the petitioners to the Tribunal. The court also noted that it had not examined the merits of the NPA classification and that those questions could be raised before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The petitioners were rightly directed to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; the writ challenge was not maintainable at this stage.

---