Delay and laches, plus SARFAESI jurisdiction limits, defeated a writ challenge to BIFR abatement proceedings.

A belated writ challenge to SARFAESI measures was held vulnerable to delay and laches after repeated earlier challenges and more than a year's gap from the impugned action. On the merits, the Court stated that once measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act had been taken, BIFR could not decide whether those measures were correctly invoked; such questions had to be pursued under the SARFAESI framework or in writ jurisdiction. The Court also relied on an unchallenged DRT finding that the bank held a valid second charge, and declined to entertain collateral assertions disputing the secured creditor's status.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches; (ii) whether the BIFR could abate the reference on the basis of action taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and whether the petitioner could dispute the secured creditor's status and charge in these proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The petition was filed after repeated earlier challenges and after more than a year from the relevant impugned action. The Court treated the delay as inordinate and found that the belated filing disentitled the petitioner to relief in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was hit by delay and laches and this ground weighed against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the BIFR could abate the reference on the basis of action taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and whether the petitioner could dispute the secured creditor's status and charge in these proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that once measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act had been taken, the BIFR could not decide whether those measures were correctly invoked. Such questions had to be pursued under the SARFAESI Act or in writ jurisdiction. The Court also relied on the unchallenged DRT finding that the bank held a valid second charge, and therefore rejected the attempt to dispute the secured creditor's status on the basis of later correspondence or collateral assertions.

Conclusion: The challenge on merits failed and the abatement order was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found meritless, both procedurally and on merits, and the connected stay application also ceased to survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a secured creditor has taken measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the BIFR cannot sit in judgment on whether those measures were correctly taken, and a belated writ challenge to that action is liable to fail.

---