A writ petition challenging a private bank’s SARFAESI action is not maintainable.

The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in the property over which a private bank was taking steps to obtain possession. She approached the High Court seeking restraint against the Bank’s alleged attempt to dispossess her.

Before filing the writ petition, the petitioner had instituted Title Suit No. 1191 of 2026 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore. By order dated 12 August 2026, the Civil Court restrained the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit property or disturbing the plaintiff’s possession until 15 September 2026.

The petitioner had also impleaded the Bank’s authorised officer in the civil suit.

The petitioner further stated that she had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in SA 268 of 2026, and that the matter had been heard and judgment reserved on 23 July 2026.

The Bank submitted that it had not taken possession because of the Civil Court’s restraint order and the pending DRT proceedings, and further contended that the civil suit was barred under the SARFAESI Act.

The State’s written instructions did not disclose any threat of eviction by the police authorities.

Whether the High Court should grant interim protection against the Bank when the petitioner had already approached the DRT and the DRT had reserved judgment without granting stay?

Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the action of a private Bank?

Whether the petitioner’s civil suit was barred under the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

The Court applied the statutory scheme of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, under which challenges to measures taken by a secured creditor are to be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, with an appellate remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal; a writ court should not ordinarily grant interim relief that was not granted, or was impliedly refused, by the DRT.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733, which holds that a writ petition under Article 226 is generally not maintainable against a purely private bank in the absence of the requisite public-law element.

The Bank’s contention that the civil suit was barred under the SARFAESI Act was noted, though the Court did not decide that issue independently.

The Court held that the petitioner had already invoked the specialised statutory remedy before the DRT and that the DRT had finally heard SA 268 of 2026 and reserved judgment without granting any stay.

If the petitioner had not sought stay before the DRT, she could not seek such relief for the first time from the High Court; if she had sought stay and it was not granted, the omission amounted to an implied refusal that could not be circumvented through a writ petition.

In that event, the petitioner’s appropriate remedy was before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

The Court also noted that the existing Civil Court order already restrained forcible possession until 15 September 2026, while the State’s instructions disclosed no independent threat of eviction by the police.

Independently, because the impugned action was that of a private Bank, the writ petition was not maintainable under the principle stated in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas.

It declined to grant a writ-based stay or restraint order because the petitioner had an effective remedy before the DRT/DRAT and the DRT had not granted stay.

The writ petition was also held not maintainable against the private Bank in light of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas.

Accordingly, WPA 22156 of 2026 was dismissed without costs, with no further relief granted.

An urgent certified copy was directed to be supplied upon compliance with the requisite formalities.