Independent title disputes under SARFAESI may proceed in civil court when secured asset status itself is contested.

Persons claiming independent title were not required to proceed under the SARFAESI Act where they disputed the very applicability of the secured creditor's measures and asserted that the properties were not secured assets. Section 17(1) presupposes a valid borrower-secured creditor relationship and a valid security interest; when rival title claims and the true nature of the property require adjudication, the dispute does not fit a securitisation application. In that situation, the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded under Section 34, and the Tribunal was not an efficacious forum for resolving title and property-status questions. The claimants could therefore invoke the competent civil court.

---

---

Issues: Whether persons claiming independent title over the properties could be relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act when they disputed the very applicability of the secured creditor's measures and asserted that the properties were not secured assets.

Analysis: The challenge raised a foundational dispute as to whether the petitioners were borrowers or persons bound by the security interest at all, and whether the subject properties could be treated as secured assets within the meaning of the SARFAESI Act. The statutory remedy under Section 17(1) is directed against measures taken under Section 13(4), but that presupposes the existence of a valid borrower-secured creditor relationship and a valid security interest. Where the very basis of the action is denied and rival title claims require adjudication, the matter does not fall neatly within a securitisation application. The scope of Section 34 was also considered in the light of precedent, and it was held that the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded in such a case, particularly where determination of title and the true nature of the property would require a regular civil trial. The remedy before the Tribunal was also found not to be an efficacious substitute for resolving such a dispute.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not bound to pursue the remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, and they were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent civil court.

---