SARFAESI statutory remedy and unsupported settlement extension request left the writ challenge unsuitable for entertainment.

Challenges to secured creditor possession and vacation notices under the SARFAESI framework were addressed in the context of the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The notes state that the Section 17 application followed a possession notice issued substantially earlier than the prescribed filing period. They also record that the bank reconsidered an extension of the one-time settlement but returned the request because no concrete plan was provided for payment of the settlement balance and delayed-payment interest. The writ petition was stated to be unsuitable for entertainment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the secured creditor's possession and vacation notices should be entertained despite the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI framework and reconsideration of the request for extension of the one-time settlement.

Analysis: The petitioners had invoked the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, though the possession notice had been issued substantially earlier than the prescribed 45-day period for such application. Following the earlier direction for reconsideration, the Bank considered the request for extension of the one-time settlement but returned it because no concrete payment plan for the outstanding settlement amount and delayed-payment interest was furnished.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for entertainment; the issue was decided against the petitioners.

---