SARFAESI challenge rights arise on possession measures, not only after actual dispossession of the secured asset.

A borrower or other aggrieved person may invoke the statutory challenge under the SARFAESI framework once measures under Section 13(4) are taken, and need not wait until symbolic or physical possession of the secured asset is lost. The scheme distinguishes enforcement under Section 13, possession assistance under Section 14, and the remedy under Section 17(1). On the stated understanding of the possession rules, constructive possession arises through notice and related measures, while physical possession is a separate stage. Accordingly, the right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal becomes available upon issuance of the possession measures, and is not postponed until actual dispossession.

---

---

Issues: Whether a borrower or other aggrieved person can invoke Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 upon issuance of measures under Section 13(4), without first losing symbolic or physical possession of the secured asset.

Analysis: The relevant scheme of the 2002 Act provides for enforcement of security interest under Section 13, possession assistance under Section 14, and a statutory challenge under Section 17(1) against measures taken under Section 13(4). The Court noted that the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2) contemplate constructive possession, while Rule 8(3) relates to physical possession. On that basis, the borrower's right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not postponed until actual dispossession. Once the secured creditor takes measures under Section 13(4), including issuance of possession notice under Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2), the remedy under Section 17(1) becomes available.

Conclusion: The borrower or other aggrieved person can maintain an application under Section 17(1) without waiting to lose symbolic or physical possession; the dismissal of the securitisation applications by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was unsustainable.

---