High Courts should ordinarily decline writ petitions when Section 17 provides an efficacious SARFAESI remedy.

The petitioner, described by the Court as a defaulting borrower, challenged a Magistrate’s order in C.Misc. No. 50129/2021 insofar as it concerned his residential apartment, and the consequential possession notice issued by the first respondent under the SARFAESI Act

The Court had granted an interim stay of recovery proceedings on 22 November 2022, which had remained in effect for nearly four years

The Court considered whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act

1. Whether the petitioner could invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to challenge measures taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act when a remedy under Section 17 was available

2. Whether the interim stay of the recovery proceedings should continue in light of that statutory remedy

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer extraordinary jurisdiction, but the High Court ordinarily exercises restraint where an efficacious statutory remedy is available. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides a borrower with a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against measures taken by a secured creditor under the Act

In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, the Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining Article 226 petitions where an efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act is available

The Court applied the alternative-remedy principle because the petitioner’s challenge concerned measures taken under the SARFAESI Act and Section 17 provided a statutory avenue for redress before the Debts Recovery Tribunal

It considered that allowing the interim stay to continue would indefinitely prejudice the secured creditor and impede the Act’s recovery mechanism, particularly after the stay had stalled proceedings for nearly four years

The Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the challenge to either the Magistrate’s order or the possession notice

It vacated the interim order and left the petitioner at liberty to pursue any remedy available under the SARFAESI Act, subject to questions of limitation and maintainability being determined by the competent forum

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of