Territorial jurisdiction under SARFAESI is confined to the secured asset's location; DRT remedy remains the proper challenge forum.

Under the SARFAESI Act, a Magistrate's power to assist in taking possession of a secured asset is territorially confined to the district where the asset is situated, so an order passed outside that jurisdiction is invalid. A borrower or aggrieved person challenging measures taken under Section 13(4), including the legality of the possession order, should ordinarily invoke the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. The petition was disposed of on that basis, while the impugned order was kept suspended for a limited period to enable recourse to the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act was without territorial jurisdiction; (ii) whether the petitioner was required to avail the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act.

Issue (i): Whether the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act was without territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The property in question was found to fall within the civil and criminal jurisdiction of North District and not North-West District. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act permits the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor only within the jurisdiction where the secured asset is situated. On the admitted jurisdictional position, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West.

Conclusion: The impugned order was without territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was required to avail the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides a statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to any person aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4), and the Tribunal can examine whether the secured creditor's measures comply with the Act. Since the challenge related to the legality of the measures taken and the jurisdictional validity of the impugned order, the matter could be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Conclusion: The petitioner ought to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of after recognizing the jurisdictional defect and directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, while the impugned order was kept suspended for a limited period to enable recourse to the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the SARFAESI Act, the magistrate's power to assist in taking possession of secured assets is territorially confined to the location of the secured asset, and the statutory forum under Section 17 is the proper remedy to challenge measures taken under Section 13(4).

---