A Section 14 SARFAESI order should be challenged under Section 17, not by writ.

The petitioner-borrower challenged the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore’s order dated 18 February 2026 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking to quash that order and consequential proceedings under Sections 13 and 14, and to restrain the Bank from taking possession of his property.

The High Court considered whether the writ petition could be entertained in light of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when a remedy under Section 17 is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal?

2. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the Section 14 order and consequential possession proceedings should be pursued before the appropriate statutory forum?

Under the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved person may challenge action under Sections 13(4) or 14 by applying under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal; where that remedy is effective, High Courts ordinarily decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court relied on Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345, which reaffirmed this principle, including the guidance in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 782.

The petitioner sought to challenge a Magistrate’s order under Section 14 and the related SARFAESI enforcement proceedings. Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Court held that Section 17 provides an effective statutory remedy against action under Section 14 and that such a challenge should ordinarily be taken to the Debts Recovery Tribunal rather than pursued through a writ petition.

It therefore declined to examine the merits of the petitioner’s challenge in the writ proceedings.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.