Writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily intervene in SARFAESI measures where an effective DRT remedy exists.

The petitioner challenged a possession notice dated 24 July 2020 concerning his schedule property, issued by the respondent Bank in recovery proceedings against a builder/borrower who had mortgaged the property as security for a loan.

He sought exclusion of the property from the notice and asked the Bank to proceed first against nine flats allegedly already in its physical possession.

The High Court considered whether to intervene under Articles 226 and 227, with the petitioner having a statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the Bank’s SARFAESI measures when a remedy is available before the DRT under Section 17.

2. Whether the Bank should be directed to proceed first against the nine flats allegedly in its possession rather than against the petitioner’s schedule property.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, including Section 17, which provides a remedy before the DRT against measures taken by a secured creditor.

Ordinarily, the existence of this efficacious statutory remedy weighs against intervention under Article 226. That rule is one of judicial self-restraint, not an absolute bar: writ intervention may be warranted in exceptional cases, including patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or infringement of fundamental rights.

No specific judicial precedents were identified in the order.

The petitioner’s challenge concerned the validity and manner of the Bank’s enforcement of its security interest, matters the Court considered suitable for examination by the DRT under Section 17.

His request that the Bank first enforce against the nine flats likewise required assessment of the security interest, the parties’ rights, and the factual circumstances of recovery—issues the Court declined to adjudicate in writ proceedings when a statutory remedy was available.

The petitioner had not established any exceptional circumstance justifying writ intervention.

It left all contentions open and expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ claims.