Statutory priority of secured creditors prevails over civil attachment, while asset extent disputes go to the recovery forum.

Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives registered secured creditors statutory priority over competing claims, and that priority prevails over a civil decree holder's attachment as well as other dues by virtue of the non obstante framework, including Section 31B of the recovery statute. The attachment could therefore not override the secured interest, and the lifting of attachment over the secured asset was sustained. Objections about the precise extent, value, or possible excess land outside the security interest were treated as factual matters for the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI enforcement process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the secured creditor's claim over the mortgaged property had priority over the attachment obtained by a civil decree holder under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. (ii) Whether objections regarding the extent and value of the secured asset were to be examined in the present appeal or by the Debts Recovery Tribunal / Authorised Officer.

Issue (i): Whether the secured creditor's claim over the mortgaged property had priority over the attachment obtained by a civil decree holder under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 26E gives statutory priority to secured creditors after registration of security interest and operates notwithstanding any other law. The same principle is reinforced by Section 31B of the recovery statute. The special non obstante language gives precedence to recovery of secured debts over other claims, including decretal dues under civil court decrees and government dues.

Conclusion: The secured creditor's claim had priority, and the attachment in favour of the civil decree holder could not override the secured interest.

Issue (ii): Whether objections regarding the extent and value of the secured asset were to be examined in the present appeal or by the Debts Recovery Tribunal / Authorised Officer.

Analysis: Questions about the exact extent of the secured land, its value, or whether any excess land remained outside the secured interest are factual matters connected with enforcement of security interest. Such issues fall within the domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Authorised Officer acting under the SARFAESI / recovery framework.

Conclusion: Those factual objections were left to be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Authorised Officer.

Final Conclusion: The order lifting the attachment over the secured asset was sustained, and the appeal failed on the principal legal challenge while preserving liberty to raise factual objections before the appropriate recovery forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory priority conferred on secured creditors by a non obstante provision prevails over civil court attachments and other competing dues, while asset-specific factual disputes must be pursued before the specialised recovery forum.

---