Pending DRT proceedings do not automatically stay SARFAESI action, but courts should not compel time-bound dispossession.

The petitioner, Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited, sought a writ directing the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar, and other authorities to provide it physical possession of the secured asset pursuant to an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).

The petitioner contended that, despite the Section 14 order, physical possession had not been delivered and that no interim order had been passed in the borrower’s pending Securitisation Application No. 516 of 2026 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”).

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the borrower’s application was pending with a date fixed for 24 September 2026 and that dispossession during its pendency could render the borrower’s legal remedy ineffective.

The record contains inconsistent references to the date of the Section 14 order—1 November 2025 in the relief clause and 11 January 2025 in the petitioner’s submissions—and to the year of the borrower’s Securitisation Application.

Whether the High Court should issue a time-bound writ directing the authorities to dispossess the borrower and deliver physical possession of the secured asset while the borrower’s Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act remains pending before the DRT?

Whether the mere pendency of a Securitisation Application, in the absence of an express interim order, entitles the secured creditor to seek immediate dispossession through a writ petition?

Whether the High Court should direct the Additional District Magistrate to give out-of-turn or time-bound priority to the petitioner’s Section 14 application?

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act obliges the competent Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in obtaining possession of the secured asset; the exercise is ministerial in nature, though the authority may determine the priority and manner of dealing with pending matters.

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides the borrower’s remedy before the DRT, but filing a Securitisation Application does not automatically operate as a stay; any protection must arise from an order of the DRT, which may impose appropriate conditions, including deposit requirements, while granting relief.

Writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked merely to expedite proceedings or secure preferential treatment over other litigants.

Constitutional courts should not normally prescribe time-bound schedules for disposal of pending matters, except in extraordinary circumstances, and should ordinarily leave prioritisation to the concerned court or authority.

The Court accepted that the Additional District Magistrate was required to proceed in accordance with Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and that the filing of a Securitisation Application did not, by itself, create an automatic stay.

However, that principle did not authorize the High Court to direct immediate dispossession.

The petitioner’s requested relief would effectively result in forcible dispossession while the borrower’s statutory remedy before the DRT was pending and a specific date had been fixed for its consideration.

The absence of an interim order did not require the High Court to grant the petitioner preferential execution of the Section 14 order.

Since the petitioner produced no material showing the number or priority of matters pending before the concerned authority, the Court declined to interfere with the authority’s discretion regarding the manner and sequence in which it would proceed.

Applying the principles against court-directed expedition and out-of-turn priority, the Court held that the Additional District Magistrate should determine the appropriate course while adhering to the statute and applicable law.

It left the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) to determine how and when to proceed with the Section 14 application, subject to compliance with the SARFAESI Act and governing law.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.