SARFAESI section 17 maintainability allows one challenge for multiple secured assets where recovery measures arise from the same debt.

Under the SARFAESI Act, a single application under section 17 is maintainable where multiple measures under section 13(4) relate to different secured assets but arise from the same secured debt. Jurisdiction under section 17(1A) is governed by the disjunctive connecting factors in the statute, yet the remedy remains debt-centred and focuses on the composite recovery action rather than the location of each asset. The Court held that section 14 does not make the situs of the secured asset the controlling criterion for original jurisdiction under section 17, and requiring separate applications would create unnecessary multiplicity and duplicate fee liability. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether separate measures under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 relating to different secured assets, but arising from a single debt, can be challenged in one application under section 17 of that Act.

Analysis: Section 17(1) permits an aggrieved person to apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction against measures under section 13(4). Section 17(1A) makes jurisdiction depend on any of three disjunctive factors, namely where the cause of action arises, where the secured asset is located, or where the relevant bank account is maintained. The scheme of the Act shows that the focus of the remedy is the secured debt and the measures taken to recover it, not the assets alone. The reference to section 14 does not make the situs of the asset the controlling criterion for the original jurisdiction under section 17. Fee structure under rule 13(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is also linked to the amount of debt due, which supports the view that the remedy is debt-centred. Requiring separate applications for the same debt merely because multiple assets are involved would create unnecessary multiplicity and redundant fee liability.

Conclusion: A single application under section 17 was maintainable for measures relating to several secured assets when they all arose out of the same debt, and the contrary view was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the single application was held to be competent, and the matter was sent back for decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, jurisdiction and maintainability are primarily governed by the secured debt and the composite cause of action arising from the recovery measures, not by the territorial location of each secured asset.

---