Key Points: - The Court held that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 is not available where an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the Act. (!) (!) - Actions taken under Section 14 constitute actions after Section 13(4) and are subject to appeal under Section 17 before the DRT; thus the remedy is efficacious and available. (!) - The Debts Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider whether measures under Section 13(4) are compliant with the Act and to restore possession or set aside actions if necessary. (!) (!) (!) - Rule 8 (and Rule 4) of the 2002 Rules govern possession of assets, with the noted relevance that Rule 4 may not apply to immovable assets in this case. (!)

What is the scope of relief under Articles 226/227 when an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is available?

What is the relationship between actions taken under Section 13(4) and proceedings under Section 14 and the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on appeal?

What are the proper procedures and remedies for enforcement of security interest under the Act, including the roles of Rule 4, Rule 8, and the eligibility for challenging actions before the DRT?