Alternative remedy under SARFAESI bars writ petition where borrower can challenge secured creditor's measures before the Tribunal.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where the SARFAESI Act provides an equally efficacious statutory remedy. After classification of the account as an NPA and action under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4), the borrower may challenge the secured creditor's measures before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1), with a further appeal under Section 18. Because the Tribunal can examine compliance with the Act and Rules, the statutory forum is the appropriate remedy. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the petitioner was relegated to the Section 17(1) remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against measures taken by the secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 when a statutory remedy under Section 17(1) was available.

Analysis: The remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete statutory mechanism. Once the borrower's account is classified as a non-performing asset and action is taken under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4), the borrower may challenge the creditor's action before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1), and thereafter pursue the appellate remedy under Section 18. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and is normally not exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists. In matters arising under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal is empowered to examine compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules, which makes the statutory forum the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

---