SARFAESI statutory remedy bars writ review where title disputes and secured asset claims require DRT adjudication.

Where a secured creditor proceeds under the SARFAESI Act in relation to secured assets, the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Sections 17 and 34 generally displaces writ jurisdiction. The article notes that, in a dispute involving rival title claims and competing sale deeds, the High Court declined to enter into the factual controversy or adjudicate title on merits, holding that such issues should be pursued before the DRT. The operative effect is that writ intervention was refused and the party was relegated to the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The dispute involved rival claims of title over the same property and the secured creditor had proceeded under the SARFAESI Act against the person in possession of the mortgage. The statutory scheme under Sections 17 and 34 provides an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and bars ordinary civil adjudication in matters falling within its domain. In view of the competing sale deeds and the availability of the appellate remedy, the writ court declined to enter into the factual controversy or examine the title dispute on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and interference with the impugned order was declined; the petitioner was relegated to the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act against measures taken in relation to secured assets, the High Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of title.

---