A writ petition is not maintainable where SARFAESI provides an efficacious DRT remedy.

The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 7 August 2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Case No. 2742/2026, and the consequential notice/order dated 18 August 2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kanadia, concerning proposed dispossession from the northern part of Plot No. 338A, admeasuring 1,500 sq. ft., situated at Manavata Nagar, Bicholi Hapsi, Indore.

The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned proceedings, protection against dispossession, and restraint against coercive action.

The Court noted that the property had been purchased by the petitioners during the subsistence of a loan that remained outstanding to the bank.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution in light of the rule that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained where the aggrieved person has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy.

The Court treated the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as a self-contained code and relied on Section 17, which permits any person, including a borrower or other aggrieved person, to challenge measures taken under Section 13(4) by the secured creditor before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the prescribed period.

Section 17(2) empowers the Tribunal to examine whether the secured creditor’s measures comply with the Act and the Rules, while Section 17(3) permits invalid measures to be set aside and possession to be restored.

The Court also applied the principle that a purchaser of property must remain vigilant, verify the title and relevant documents, and cannot ordinarily claim protection as a bona fide purchaser when the property is acquired during the subsistence of an outstanding secured loan.

The Court held that the SARFAESI framework provided the petitioners with an effective statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to challenge the measures connected with enforcement of the security interest.

Since the petitioners’ grievance concerned action arising from the SARFAESI proceedings, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

The Court further observed that the petitioners had purchased the property while the loan remained outstanding and, therefore, their assertion of bona fide purchase was prima facie unpersuasive.

A purchaser is required to verify the title and obtain the original title documents before entering into the transaction; the petitioners’ claim therefore did not warrant interference under Article 226.

It held that the petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

The Court also found no prima facie merit in the petitioners’ claim of being bona fide purchasers.

Accordingly, the writ petition seeking quashing of the CJM’s order and the Tehsildar’s consequential action, along with protection against dispossession and coercive measures, was dismissed.