Writ jurisdiction excluded for auction purchaser's forfeiture challenge where Section 17 remedy before DRT is available.

Forfeiture of an auction purchaser's deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as part of the measures taken in enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The expression "any person" in Section 17(1) was construed broadly to include an aggrieved auction purchaser, and Section 17(2) was read as empowering the Debts Recovery Tribunal to examine whether the measures under Section 13(4) and the Rules were in accordance with law. On that basis, the writ petition was not entertainable and the statutory remedy under Section 17 before the DRT was the proper course.

---

---

Issues: Whether the auction purchaser could maintain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge forfeiture of the deposit by the secured creditor, or whether the remedy lay in an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The forfeiture of the auction purchaser's deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was held to be part of the measures taken in enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The expression "any person" in Section 17(1) was construed broadly to include an auction purchaser aggrieved by such action, and Section 17(2) was read as empowering the Debts Recovery Tribunal to examine whether the measures taken under Section 13(4) and the rules were in accordance with law. In view of this statutory remedy, the writ petition was not entertainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to forfeiture was held to be maintainable under Section 17(1) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and not in writ jurisdiction; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where forfeiture of an auction purchaser's deposit is effected under Rule 9(5) in the course of enforcement of security interest, it forms part of the measures under Section 13(4), and the aggrieved purchaser must ordinarily pursue the remedy under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rather than invoke writ jurisdiction.

---