Facts
The petitioners had obtained a home loan from the respondent Bank to purchase a flat in Gwalior.
Source reference: p. 1–2They had filed S.A. No. 158/2026 before the DRT, Ahmedabad, concerning the loan dispute and the Bank’s recovery measures.
Source reference: p. 1–2On 9 June 2026, the DRT directed the petitioners to make two deposits and submit a one-time settlement proposal; it also directed the Bank not to take possession of the secured asset that day.
Source reference: p. 1–2The petitioners claimed to have complied but alleged that the Bank nevertheless took possession.
Source reference: p. 1–2The Bank submitted that possession had since been handed over to the auction purchaser.
Source reference: p. 1–2The petitioners sought, among other relief, restoration of possession and a direction restraining the Bank from taking possession
Source reference: p. 1–2Issues
1. Whether the High Court should grant the requested relief concerning possession when the related dispute and the effect of the DRT’s interim order were already before the DRT
Source reference: p. 2–32. Whether the subsequent taking of possession and its transfer to the auction purchaser materially affected the immediate relief sought in the writ petition
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p. 1The Court treated the pending DRT proceedings as the appropriate forum to examine the petitioners’ grievance regarding the Bank’s recovery action, the effect of the DRT’s interim order, and the consequences of subsequent recovery measures.
Source reference: p. 3The judgment cites no specific statutory provision beyond Article 226 and relies on no precedent; it expresses no view on the merits of the parties’ claims
Source reference: p. 1, 3Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioners had already raised substantially similar matters before the DRT, including issues concerning the Bank’s conduct and the interim order.
Source reference: p. 3It further recorded that possession had been taken and handed over to the auction purchaser, materially changing the immediate relief sought against the Bank.
Source reference: p. 3Because the relevant questions could be addressed in the pending DRT proceedings, the Court declined to determine the legality of the Bank’s actions or the parties’ rights in the secured asset
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to pursue appropriate relief before the DRT, Ahmedabad, in the pending proceedings.
It directed that the DRT decide those proceedings on their merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations, and clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits
Source reference: p. 3–4Original Court PDF
Aditya SaxenavsUnion Bank Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Courts will not interfere with transfers absent mala fides or violation of statutory rules.. M Ramya vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC). CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/courts-will-not-interfere-with-transfers-absent-mala-fides-or-violation-of-statutory-rules-a6845e9ca6f548fca284c51c8351957f.webp)
![Courts cannot direct one-time recruitment age relaxation absent authority in the governing rules or advertisement.. UT OF PUDUCHERRY vs M ANDAL. CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/courts-cannot-direct-one-time-recruitment-age-relaxation-absent-authority-in-the-governing-895d78fde47143e2a8ed0207c4b6a44f.webp)
![A review cannot correct an allegedly erroneous decision absent an error apparent on the record.. Ajit Kumar Jha vs RAILWAY BOARD. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/a-review-cannot-correct-an-allegedly-erroneous-decision-absent-an-error-apparent-on-the-re-8ac952fd4eba470c92f7da20af72a220.webp)