A pending Section 17 application does not stay Section 14 enforcement absent interim relief.

The Bank sought police assistance to implement the District Magistrate, Bankura’s order dated 27 November 2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, authorising steps to take physical possession of the secured assets.

The Bank submitted that it had taken measures under Section 13(4)(a), sold the assets by auction, and had received no police assistance to execute the Section 14 order.

The borrowers opposed assistance, arguing that their application under Section 17(1), challenging the measures, was pending before the DRT.

A prior writ petition challenging the District Magistrate’s order had been dismissed, with liberty to pursue the pending DRT application.

1. Whether the pendency of the borrowers’ Section 17(1) application before the DRT, without an interim order staying the measures, prevented police assistance to implement the District Magistrate’s Section 14 order.

2. Whether the police authorities should be directed to assist the Bank in implementing that order.

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides for the District Magistrate’s assistance in taking possession of secured assets; proceedings under Section 14 are independent of a borrower’s challenge under Section 17.

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s decision in Arpita Debnath & Anr. v. UCO Bank & Ors., FMA 309 of 2022, which held that a pending Section 17 proceeding does not itself stay enforcement and that the borrower must seek interim relief from the DRT.

The borrowers’ Section 17(1) application was pending, but the Court found no demonstrated stay preventing enforcement of the District Magistrate’s order.

It also noted that, after dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the borrowers had not shown that they had taken further steps before the DRT or sought the relief identified by the Court.

Applying Arpita Debnath, the Court held that pendency alone did not bar police assistance; the borrowers’ remedy was to seek interim relief before the DRT.

The writ petition was disposed of, and the subsequent request by the private respondents to stay the judgment was refused.