In Brief
An auction purchaser whose deposit was forfeited by a bank (secured creditor) after the purchaser failed to pay installments on the auction sale price sought to challenge the forfeiture through a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed it, holding that the purchaser had an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the action before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld this, holding that forfeiture of a purchaser's deposit under Rule 9(5) is part of measures taken under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI and falls within DRT jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed that effective statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching courts under Article 226.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.