The availability of the right to appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act for the borrower/guarantor against measures taken by the secured creditor, and the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy precludes the invocation of writ jurisdiction.

S.MANIKUMAR, J

Petitioner's husband has borrowed a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs, for running a Brick Chamber. The petitioner has agreed to be the guarantor. There were some set back in running the business and therefore, repayment of the entire loan, could not be made. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that out of family sources, a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs has been paid, as against loan of Rs.60 Lakhs. According to the petitioner, she has not created any security interest of the residential property.

2. The Authorised Officer/Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai and Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Kumbakonam, respondents 2 and 3, respectively, has filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, before the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, seeking assistance to take possession of the security interest. Inasmuch as the subject property has not been mortgaged by the petitioner, notice dated 08.03.2017 of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, directing the petitioner/Guarantor, Mr.Rajesh, borrower/husband of the writ petitioner and other guarantors/ Father-in-law and Mother-in-law of the writ petitioner, to participate in the enquiry on 24.03.2017, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed to call for the notice dated 13.03.2017 of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, and to quash the same.

3. Heard Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. Supporting affidavit filed in Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, indicates that respondents therein viz., Mr.U.Ramesh, husband of the writ petitioner, Mrs.U.Amudha and Mr.M.Uthirapathy, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the writ petitioner, respectively and Mrs.Sivaranjani, writ petitioner/wife of the borrower, who stood, as the guarantors have been impleaded as respondents therein and that at paragraph No.5 of the supporting affidavit, the Authorised Officer of M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, has submitted that the respondents therein had created a security interest, over the properties, mentioned in the schedule therein, by way of equitable mortgage, by deposit of title deed. In the said application, the bank has further contended that, a demand notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for symbolic possession has been issued. According to the bank, the respondents therein, are liable to pay a sum of Rs.68,16,708/-. Schedule of property mentioned in the application, filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is extracted hereunder.

"SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of the property comprised in T.S.No.964, Block No.28, Ward No.3, Kurainadu, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Mayiladuthurai Town, Gandhi Nagar, 3rd Cross, (Sengamettu Street North Part), Site No.6, Door No.6, bounded on the North by: East to West Lay out Road, South by: Site No.13, East by: Site No.7 and West by: Site No.5, measuring an extent of (96*40) 3840 sq.ft or 356.75 sq. mtr of land along with 1138 sq.ft or 105.73 sq.mtr builtup area of First Floor and 488 sq.ft or 45.34 sq.mtr builtup area of second floor, along with all other appurtenant thereto with all easmentary right to the property, situated within the District of Nagapattinam and Registration District of Mayiladuthurai, Sub-Registration District of Mayiladuthrai Joint-1, which is morefully described in the Registered Sale Deed No.1462/2013."

5. Material on record further discloses that while availing the loan, Mr.U.Amudha and Mr.M.Uthirapathi, in-laws of the writ petitioner, the borrower Mr.U.Rajesh and the writ petitioner, have executed a general Power of Attorney to and in favour of M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, wh