Alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act bars writ jurisdiction against bank recovery despite residence orders under DV Act.

The Appellant (wife) obtained a protection order on June 22, 2022, from a Jurisdictional Magistrate under the P.W.D.V. Act, restraining her husband (Respondent No. 6) from interfering with her possession of their residence

Subsequently, HDFC Bank (Respondent No. 5) initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for the same property, issuing a possession notice dated June 13, 2024

The Appellant challenged this notice by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)

Simultaneously, she filed a writ petition (W.P.A 18540 of 2024) seeking police protection to enforce the Magistrate’s order, which the Single Bench declined to entertain

The Appellant moved the Division Bench in appeal against this refusal.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with SARFAESI proceedings when an alternative statutory remedy has already been invoked by the petitioner

2. Whether a residence protection order passed under the D.V. Act is binding on a secured creditor (Bank) that was not a party to the D.V. proceedings

The court applied the principle of "Alternative Remedy" regarding the SARFAESI Act, 2002, specifically Section 17(1), which provides a specialized forum (DRT) for aggrieved persons to challenge measures taken by secured creditors

The court also noted the procedural principle that interim orders in personam (under the D.V. Act) generally do not bind third parties/secured creditors who were not joined as parties to those proceedings

The Court observed that the Appellant had already exercised her statutory right by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act to quash the possession notice

The Court reasoned that since the Appellant is already ventilating her grievances and seeking interim protection before a specialized tribunal, the Single Bench was justified in refusing to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Regarding the D.V. Act order, the Court found that because the Bank was not a party to the Magistrate's proceeding, the restraint order against the husband did not per se bar the Bank's statutory right to recover the secured asset

Therefore, the appropriate venue for balancing the wife's right to residence against the Bank's recovery rights is the DRT

The Court directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata, to hear the Appellant's Section 17(1) application and her prayer for interim stay on its merits, preferably within 30 working days

It clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the title or interest in the property