Interim stay vacated permitting bank auction as petitioner seeks alternative remedy before DRT.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 5318/2026 was a borrower, while the petitioners in W.P. No. 9651/2026 were the borrower’s tenants

On 14/11/2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, granted the borrower a 15-day "cushion" period, conditional upon depositing Rs. 10 lakhs within five days and submitting a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal

Although the borrower deposited the amount on 17/11/2024, they failed to submit the OTS proposal for over a month

Subsequent proposals were rejected by the respondent Bank as unsatisfactory

Consequently, the Tahsildar Mau issued a show-cause notice on 29/01/2026 for the delivery of physical possession of the mortgaged property to the Bank

The petitioners challenged this notice under Article 226, seeking to set it aside pending OTS negotiations

1. Whether the possession notice dated 29/01/2026 was legally sustainable given the petitioners' partial compliance with the DRT’s directions regarding the OTS proposal

2. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions to pursue alternative remedies before the DRT, Jabalpur

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of writs of mandamus or certiorari

The court adhered to the principle of alternative efficacy, implying that disputes arising from debt recovery and possession measures under the SARFAESI context (indicated by the involvement of DRT and Bank possession notices) are appropriately adjudicated by the specialized forum, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), rather than through writ intervention

The Court observed that while the petitioner complied with the monetary deposit condition of the DRT’s order, they failed to adhere to the timeline for submitting a valid OTS proposal

The Bank argued that the failure of OTS negotiations necessitated the initiation of recovery proceedings, including the issuance of show-cause notices for auction

The Court noted that since the OTS proposal had been rejected and the purpose of the petition—to suspend possession during negotiations—had effectively been frustrated by the lapse of time and failed talks, the Bank was entitled to proceed

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the Bank's recovery actions, the Court accepted the petitioners' request to withdraw the petitions to seek relief from the specialized statutory forum (DRT)

It granted the petitioners liberty to approach the DRT, Jabalpur, to raise all available grounds, which are to be considered by the authority in accordance with the law

Critically, the Court vacated the interim relief previously granted on 12/02/2026 and expressly authorized the respondent Bank to proceed with the auction of the mortgaged property

Both petitions were disposed of with the aforementioned liberty