Challenges to SARFAESI measures must be pursued before the DRT under Section 17.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 12 August 2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 and sought protection against coercive action, including attachment of her residential house at Navratan Bagh Colony, Indore.

She contended that proceedings before the competent Consumer Court had concluded, an appeal filed by the bank was pending, and execution proceedings had been initiated by her.

According to the petitioner, despite the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the bank’s non-appearance, the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and obtained an order under Section 14 without issuing her notice under the relevant provisions.

The Court applied Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which authorises the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets, subject to the statutory requirements, including the authorised officer’s affidavit and compliance with Section 13 and the applicable rules.

Section 17 provides that any person, including the borrower, aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4) may apply to the DRT within forty-five days; the DRT may examine the legality of the measures, declare them invalid, restore possession, and issue appropriate directions.

The Court followed the settled principle that the SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code and that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained where an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy is available, absent exceptional circumstances.

The petitioner’s grievance directly concerned the bank’s initiation and continuation of recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act, including the Section 14 possession proceedings.

Since Section 17 expressly permits “any person,” including a borrower or other aggrieved person, to challenge measures taken under Section 13(4), the DRT was competent to examine whether the bank had complied with the SARFAESI Act and the Rules and to grant consequential relief, including restoration of possession.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy.

Her reliance on the pending consumer proceedings and alleged absence of notice did not justify bypassing the statutory mechanism, particularly when the challenge was to SARFAESI measures.

The petition challenging the notice dated 12 August 2026 and seeking protection against attachment or other coercive action was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the DRT.