Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable against SARFAESI Section 14 proceedings; must exhaust Section 17 remedy before DRT.

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner, along with his wife, had purchased a residential property, in November 2022 for valid consideration from Ms. Anna Neema Roy/respondent No.5 as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The title of the property traces back to respondent No.2, Mr. Jojin George, who had originally purchased the property in the year 2015, from one Mr. Varkey through Sale Deed No.1965 of 2015. Subsequently, in October 2022, respondent No.2 transferred the property to respondent No.5 through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2287/I/2022. It is thereafter, the petitioner acquired the property from respondent No.5. After purchasing the property and while enjoying the same, the 1st respondent alleging that respondents 2 to 4 have availed a loan, by mortgaging the property in question, initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and an order was obtained under Section 14 of the Act. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the 1st Respondent, their agents or any person claiming under them from dispossessing the Petitioner and his family members from the residential property in question;

ii. Declare that the action of the 1st Respondent in initiating and proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act against the property in possession of the Petitioner without notice or impleadment is illegal, unconstitutional, and void;”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission, 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and he was not aware of the encumbrance created over the property by his predecessor. He also submitted that the Advocate Commissioner is knocking the doors of the petitioner and the engagement ceremony of the petitioner’s daughter is scheduled on 11.04.2026.

4. It cannot be disputed that the remedy of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under the Act, including the proceedings under Section 13(4) leading to Section 14 of the Act, lies with the DRT by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011 (2) SCC 782) have categorically held that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 17 (1) of the Act and that not only the borrower, but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 can take recourse to Section 17 of the Act. That apart, these decisions also advice that the High Court must insist that before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such persons must exhaust the efficacious alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the Act.

5.In the light of the afore dictums of the Apex Court, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.

Ergo, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy.