Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ.—This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Gujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd., [borrower] against the notice issued by the respondent-secured creditor under Section 13[2] of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”]. 2. According to the petitioner it has paid all the dues as were due to the respondents. In fact, payment has been made pursuant to order dated 27th March, 2002 passed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “AAIFR”]. 3. Mr. Mihir Thakor, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing with Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Sr. Advocate with Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner would refer to order dated 27th March, 2002, passed by the AAIFR in Appeal No. 387 of 2001, to suggest that amount of Rs. 6.58 Crores as was due to respondent No.1-IDBI and another sum of Rs. 4.09 Crores as was due to respondent No. 2-IFCI have already been paid. It was submitted that 45% of the said amount has been paid by the petitioner in cash and rest of the amount has been paid by conversion of equity shares; the debts having discharged, notice issued under Section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act was uncalled for. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner, but such contention had been rejected. 4. The respondents, on appearance have refuted the contention and have shown the following amount due from the petitioner to the respondent no.1-IDBI as on 1st June, 2011 and respondent No. 2-IFCI as on 30th June, 2011 respectively. GUJARAT POLY-AVX ELECTRONICS LIMITED [GPEL] DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING LOANS OF IFCI AS ON 30.06.2011 [INCLUSIVE] [Figures in Rupees] Sl. Loan Account Principal Interest [including Total No. Further interest & Liquidated Damages] 1. Rupee Term Loan Rs. 98,00,000 Rs. 34,27,81,468.00 Rs. 35,25,81,468.00 2. Foreign Currency Rs. 3,11,00,000 Rs. 136,62,17,652.00 Rs. 139,73,17,652.00 Loan [converted into Rupee Loan] Total Rs. 4,09,00,000 Rs. 170,89,99,120.00 Rs. 174,98,99,120.00 GUJARAT POLY-AVX ELECTRONICS LIMITED [GPEL] DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING LOANS OF OTHER SECURED TERM LENDER, IDBI AS ON 01.06.2011 [INCLUSIVE] [Figures in Rupees] 1 Principal Rs. 6,57,87,746 2 Interest Rs. 18,65,89,090 3 Further Interest Rs.159,88,44,784 4 Liquidated Damages Rs. 20,48,85,304 Total Rs. 205,61,06,924 5. Mr. 136,62,17,652.00 Rs. 139,73,17,652.00 Loan [converted into Rupee Loan] Total Rs. 4,09,00,000 Rs. 170,89,99,120.00 Rs. 174,98,99,120.00 GUJARAT POLY-AVX ELECTRONICS LIMITED [GPEL] DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING LOANS OF OTHER SECURED TERM LENDER, IDBI AS ON 01.06.2011 [INCLUSIVE] [Figures in Rupees] 1 Principal Rs. 6,57,87,746 2 Interest Rs. 18,65,89,090 3 Further Interest Rs.159,88,44,784 4 Liquidated Damages Rs. 20,48,85,304 Total Rs. 205,61,06,924 5. Mr. Anip Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that there being remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, as and when action may be taken by the respondents under Section 13[4] of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner could move before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. In the present case, we find that the respondents have not yet taken any measure under Section 13[4] of the SARFAESI Act and thus, there is no cause of action taken place under the SARFAESI Act. 8. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, reported in [2010] 8 SCC 110, wherein, referring to different provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 9. In case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in [2011] 2 SCC 782, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court dismsising the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that: “It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.” 10. The Supreme Court held that: “It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.” 10. In the instant case, apart from the fact that admittedly, there is a disputed question of fact as to whether pursuant to the decision of the AAIFR, any amount had been paid to or realized by the respondent No.1-IDBI and respondent No. 2-IFCI, we find that there is no cause of action taken place under the SARFAESI Act till date in absence of any measure taken under Section 13[4] of the SARFAESI Act. If such measure is taken by the respondents under Section 13[4] of the SARFAESI Act, there being an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act available to the petitioner, who may ultimately avail the same, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner to move before the Debt Recovery Tribunal if any measure is taken by the respondents under Section 13[4]. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. P P P P P