THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.36257 OF 2025 Mr. V. Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The petitioner claims to be a third party to the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor/Bank.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition has been filed challenging a Notice dated 30.10.2025 issued under Rule 8(6) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, which states, inter alia, that the borrower has failed to clear the dues of the secured creditor and that the immovable secured assets, which have been taken possession of by the Authorised Officer will be sold through a public E-auction on 28.11.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner, being a third party to the dispute, is precluded from approaching the statutory forum under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’). It is further submitted that the allegation of fraud made against the secured creditor cannot be adjudicated by the statutory forum.

3. We are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act makes it clear that any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken.

5. In the present case, there does not appear to be any challenge to the Possession Notice dated 15.04.2025 issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has only approached the Writ Court against the Auction Notice dated 30.10.2025 issued under Rule 8(6) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

6. It is well settled that the Writ Court will not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere where an alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner unless the exceptions mentioned in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1998 (8) SCC 1 are present in the facts of the case. No such exceptions have been pleaded or demonstrated in the present case. Hence, there is no scope for interference in the Writ Petition.

7. W.P.No.36257 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

1.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 27.11.2025 va