An effective Section 17 SARFAESI remedy ordinarily bars writ petitions challenging enforcement measures.

The petitioner challenged the District Magistrate-cum-Collector’s order dated 11 January 2019, passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Case No. 67 of 2016, authorising possession of secured property.

She claimed that the property included her dwelling house and co-shares, and that she was neither the borrower nor a guarantor.

She sought to set aside the order or restrain the respondents from taking possession.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy was available, without determining the underlying property dispute.

1. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the possession-related action under the SARFAESI Act could be entertained under Article 226 when a statutory remedy was available.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim that she was a non-borrower whose property was affected entitled her to relief in the writ petition.

Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act permits any person, including a person other than the borrower, aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4) to apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the prescribed period.

The Court applied the rule that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 where an effective statutory remedy is available, with particular rigour in matters involving recovery of bank dues; it relied on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 1, and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, 2024 INSC 297.

Although the petitioner asserted that she was not the borrower or guarantor and that her dwelling house was included in the property sought to be taken into possession, the Court treated Section 17 as an effective remedy available to an aggrieved person.

Applying the authorities on exhaustion of statutory remedies, it declined to examine the merits of her claim or the scope of the Collector’s order in the writ proceeding.

It disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner at liberty to approach the appropriate forum and directing that the question of limitation be considered by the concerned authority.