Writ jurisdiction was declined where the SARFAESI Act provided an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

The petitioners had availed a loan facility from Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited against secured property. Defaults allegedly occurred due to financial difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The petitioners had previously approached the High Court in WPC No. 3539 of 2021 and related proceedings, in which directions were issued to the respondents to consider their representations before taking coercive measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioners submitted detailed objections dated 20 July 2026, raising issues concerning insurance coverage under the Group Credit Protection Plus Insurance Scheme for deceased borrower Late Satish Mishra, the levy of interest and penal charges, and their willingness to settle the allegedly genuine and undisputed dues up to ₹1,25,00,000.

The respondents rejected the objections by order dated 3 August 2026 and subsequently issued a possession notice dated 12 August 2026 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding approximately ₹7,55,56,659.

The petitioners challenged the rejection order and possession notice under Article 226 of the Constitution but expressed their readiness to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”).

The Court applied the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Section 13(4) empowers a secured creditor to take specified enforcement measures, including taking possession of the secured asset, upon the borrower’s failure to discharge liability.

Section 17 provides an efficacious statutory remedy to an aggrieved person against measures taken under Section 13(4) by approaching the competent DRT.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that, where a specialised statutory remedy is available and the dispute involves factual and disputed questions—such as computation of outstanding dues, applicability of insurance, levy of interest and penal charges, and validity of enforcement measures—the High Court ordinarily should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court found that the petitioners’ principal grievances concerned the legality of the SARFAESI measures and disputed issues relating to the loan account, including the outstanding amount, insurance coverage, interest, penal charges, and the validity of the possession notice.

These matters required examination of the loan records and disputed factual issues, for which the DRT was the appropriate statutory forum under Section 17. Accordingly, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits in writ jurisdiction.

However, since the petitioners expressed their intention to avail the statutory remedy, the Court granted them 20 days to approach the competent DRT and directed that, if they did so within that period, the secured creditor should not take coercive steps pursuant to the possession notice during the specified protective period.

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the competent DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the possession notice dated 12 August 2026 and other consequential measures within 20 days from the date of the order.

If the petitioners approached the DRT within that period, the respondent-secured creditor was directed not to take coercive steps pursuant to the possession notice against the petitioners or the secured asset for 20 days from the date of the order.

All issues concerning the insurance policy, outstanding dues, interest, penal charges, and validity of the SARFAESI measures were expressly left open for determination by the DRT.