SARFAESI alternate remedy principle limits writ jurisdiction where Section 17 relief before the Tribunal is available.

Measures taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are treated as measures under Section 13(4), so an aggrieved person ordinarily has a statutory remedy under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The ordinary rule is that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be invoked where that efficacious alternate remedy exists, especially when the dispute raises factual and legal questions that the Tribunal can examine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, including action under Section 14, was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: Action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is treated as a measure under Section 13(4). A person aggrieved by such measures has a statutory remedy under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which can examine the correctness of the secured creditor's action and all connected factual and legal issues. In matters arising under the SARFAESI Act, the ordinary rule is that parties should be relegated to that efficacious alternate remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where disputed questions of fact are involved.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; the challenge to the SARFAESI measures failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory forum, and the Court declined to examine the rival claims on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against measures taken under Section 13(4), including action under Section 14, the High Court should ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, especially where the dispute involves questions of fact.

---