A DRT’s interim three-week notice requirement applies only until the next scheduled hearing date.

The petitioners had availed credit facilities from the respondent bank, secured by a mortgage over immovable property. Following alleged default, the bank initiated enforcement proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).

The petitioners challenged the bank’s measures before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in S.A. 458 of 2025.

Separately, the bank applied under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman, in Misc. Case No. 888 of 2025. By order dated 8 January 2026, the Magistrate directed that police assistance be provided to facilitate the bank’s taking physical possession of the secured asset.

The petitioners thereafter challenged the proposed physical possession before the DRT. On 7 April 2026, the DRT fixed the matter for hearing on 13 July 2026 and directed the bank, “in the meantime,” to provide at least three weeks’ prior notice before acting upon the Section 14 order.

The bank subsequently issued a notice dated 29 August 2026 proposing to take possession on 8 September 2026. The petitioners alleged that this notice violated the DRT’s direction. The bank relied on an earlier notice dated 18 May 2026, which it claimed had been delivered to the wife of petitioner no. 2.

Whether the bank’s notice dated 29 August 2026 proposing to take physical possession of the secured asset violated the DRT’s order dated 7 April 2026 requiring three weeks’ prior notice?

Whether the High Court should grant interim protection restraining the bank from acting pursuant to the Section 14 order dated 8 January 2026 while the petitioners’ applications remained pending before the DRT?

Whether the petitioners’ challenges to the Section 14 proceedings and the possession notice ought to be adjudicated by the DRT rather than by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied Sections 14 and 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Section 14 enables the secured creditor to seek the assistance of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate for obtaining possession of a secured asset, while Section 17 provides the borrower with a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against measures taken under the Act.

The Court also applied the principle that a judicial direction must be interpreted meaningfully and in context: the DRT’s direction requiring three weeks’ notice “in the meantime” was understood as applying to any possession action proposed before the next scheduled hearing date, namely 13 July 2026.

Since the petitioners had already invoked the statutory remedy before the DRT, the High Court declined to determine the merits of the Section 14 challenge and directed the DRT to consider the pending interlocutory applications expeditiously.

The Court found that the bank’s reliance on the notice dated 18 May 2026 could not, at that stage, be disbelieved, as the postal material indicated delivery to Rousana Bibi, stated to be the wife of petitioner no. 2.

More importantly, the DRT’s order dated 7 April 2026 was interpreted in its procedural context. The phrase “in the meantime,” read with the scheduled hearing date of 13 July 2026, meant that the three-week notice requirement operated only if the bank intended to take possession before that date.

As the scheduled date had already passed, the Court held that the bank’s subsequent action could not, on that basis, be faulted.

In addition, the petitioners’ substantive challenges were already pending before the DRT, which was the appropriate forum under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court therefore found no sufficient ground for granting interim restraint, while expressly leaving all merits open before the Tribunal.

The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the petitioners’ challenge.

The DRT-II, Kolkata was directed to dispose of the petitioners’ preponement application and thereafter fix an early hearing for IA 6613 of 2026, challenging the Section 14 proceedings, and IA 10448 of 2026, challenging the possession notice dated 29 August 2026.

The Tribunal was requested to hear the applications preferably within two weeks and the parties were directed to complete pleadings concerning the Section 14 application in the meantime.

All questions on merits were left open for determination by the DRT.