A single application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable for a single debt, despite there being several secured assets, and the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain such an application is primarily based on the debt itself, not solely determined by the location of the secured assets.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises against an order passed by the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal - I. The application has been entertained in view of lack of availability of the regular appellate forum. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the appellate tribunal would not be sitting prior to the end of the oncoming Puja vacation and as such, in consonance with the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium, the instant application has been entertained.

2. By the impugned order dated April 18, 2019, the tribunal allowed an objection of the respondent as to the present petitioners having erroneously filed a single application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act"), thereby clubbing challenges to three different notices, to save court fee. Upon upholding such objection, the tribunal disposed of the said application of the petitioners with a direction to file fresh SARFAESI application.

3. The question which falls for consideration in the instant revisional application is, whether separate notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, pertaining to different secured assets for a single debt, can be challenged in a single application under Section 17 of the said Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that, since Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act contemplates an application against measures to recover secured debts and gives the right to any person, including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13, to approach the tribunal, a single application was maintainable in view of the secured debt being a single one.

5. Placing reliance on Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the same contemplated enforcement of security interest.

6. Sub-section (4) of Section 13, it is argued, is attracted when the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2). Sub-section (2), on the other hand, contemplates a default by a borrower who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof.

7. As such, it is argued by the petitioners that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is tied up with the debt and not the secured assets.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that, even if there is a single debt, if the secured assets are several, several applications have to be filed by the petitioner in the tribunals respectively having jurisdiction in respect of such assets.

9. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the opposite parties places reliance on Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for the possession of any secured asset to be taken by the secured creditor with the assistance of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate, to be provided on an application by the secured creditor. It is argued that, if the assets lie in different jurisdictions, it would be unnecessary multiplicity for the secured creditor to approach several Magistrates having territorial jurisdiction in respect of the said different assets, for getting such possession, pursuant to the notice(s) under Section 13(4) of the said Act.

10. It is further argued that the jurisdiction of the tribunal cannot depend on the debt but relates to the territorial jurisdiction relating to the secured assets.

11. The provisions referred to by counsel for the respective parties are set out hereinbelow:

"SARFAESI Act:-

13. Enforcement of security interest. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the p