Constitution of India — Article 226 — SARFAESI proceedings
Where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226.
(Paras 3–4)
SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Section 14 — Possession through Advocate Commissioner
Measures taken by a secured creditor for taking physical possession of secured assets through an Advocate Commissioner appointed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are amenable to challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(Paras 2–3)
Alternative remedy — Debts Recovery Tribunal
Disputes relating to initiation of SARFAESI measures, including objections regarding notice, legal heirs, and jurisdictional infirmities, fall within the exclusive domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(Para 3)
Writ jurisdiction — Self-restraint
High Court should exercise judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction when the legislature has provided a special forum with a complete adjudicatory mechanism for redressal of grievances.
(Paras 3–4)
Legal heirs — Alleged action against deceased guarantor
Even where the grievance is that SARFAESI measures were initiated against a deceased guarantor without notice to legal heirs, the remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and not directly under Article 226.
(Paras 2–3)
Interim protection — Limited indulgence
While relegating the petitioner to the alternative statutory remedy, the High Court may grant limited interim protection to enable the petitioner to approach the competent forum.
(Para 4)
Conditional stay — Automatic vacation
Interim protection granted by the High Court stands automatically vacated if the petitioner fails to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtain appropriate interim orders within the time granted.
(Para 4)
ANALYSIS
The writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 02.01.2026 issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured property pursuant to orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (Para 1).
The petitioner contended that his mother, the owner of the secured asset and guarantor, died on 10.09.2021, and that the Bank initiated SARFAESI measures without issuing notice to the legal heirs, thereby proceeding against a deceased person (Para 2).
The Division Bench observed that even assuming such a grievance to be correct, the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is a forum constituted under a special enactment with a complete mechanism for adjudicating SARFAESI disputes (Para 3).
The Court emphasized that without availing the remedy before the Tribunal, the petitioner had straightaway invoked writ jurisdiction, which is impermissible in view of settled principles governing Article 226 where alternative remedies exist (Paras 3–4).
Accordingly, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits and relegated the petitioner to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, granting three days’ time to approach the Tribunal (Para 4).
As a protective interim measure, the Court directed the Advocate Commissioner not to take possession during this limited period, clarifying that such protection would automatically stand vacated if the petitioner failed to approach the Tribunal and secure interim relief within the stipulated time (Para 4).
RATIO DECIDENDI
When measures are initiated by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, including taking physical possession of secured assets through an Advocate Commissioner appointed under Section 14, any grievance—whether relating to notice, jurisdiction, or action against a deceased guarantor—must be agitated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, will decline interference where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, though it may grant limited interim protection to enable the aggrieved party to approach the competent forum.
