#Section 17 SARFAESI

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a third party with a legitimate interest in property, even if not a borrower or guarantor, can invoke Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge a bank’s recovery action. The sale of the property must be stayed until the appellant obtains a certified copy of the DRT’s order, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing irreversible harm before legal redress is complete.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that borrowers may bypass Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and directly approach the High Court under Article 226 only if the DRT is non-functional. The court mandates filing a Section 17 application within 7 days and depositing 10% of dues to maintain status quo on secured assets.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that borrowers must exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before approaching writ courts, dismissing a petition challenging a Section 14 order. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's stance in Celir LLP and Satyawati Tandon, limiting judicial intervention where alternative remedies exist.

Allahabad High Court reinforces that borrowers cannot bypass the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing writ petitions under Article 226. The ruling clarifies that private financial institutions acting under the SARFAESI Act are not subject to writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, impacting recovery proceedings for banks and NBFCs.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that borrowers must first approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition but granted a 30-day window to file before the DRT without limitation, reinforcing the statutory remedy exhaustion principle for secured creditor disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that repeated Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications are lawful if justified, but remedies lie only before DRT under Section 17.