Relief Granted Under Writ Jurisdiction to Allow Statutory Remedy Pursuit Against SARFAESI Coercive Measures

The petitioner, a partner of Kaiser Infra, challenged a notice dated 04.05.2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Durg, which proposed taking physical possession of his mortgaged residential property on 11.05.2026.

The property was secured with UCO Bank (Respondent No. 4), which initiated recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Following an order by the District Magistrate under Section 14 on 19.01.2026, the Tehsildar issued the impugned notice.

Although a securitization application (SA No. 113/2024) was pending before the DRT Jabalpur, an interim order dated 25.03.2026 allowed the e-auction to proceed while staying the issuance of the sale certificate.

The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition and mandamus to stay dispossession to allow time to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to stay physical possession when a statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act is available.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to "breathing time" to approach the appellate forum despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Section 14 regarding the assistance of the Magistrate in taking possession.

Section 17 regarding the right to appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

Principle of "efficacious statutory remedy," noting that while writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, it should generally yield to the specialized forums provided under the SARFAESI Act, such as the DRT and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings under Section 17, which were pending.

The court noted that the Tehsildar’s notice provided a very short window (two days from the filing/hearing) for dispossession, which could cause serious prejudice and civil consequences for the immovable property.

While Respondent No. 4 argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy at the DRAT Allahabad and criticized the petitioner's lack of diligence, the court found that the "balance of convenience" necessitated limited protection.

The court chose not to adjudicate the merits but focused on ensuring the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to invoke the statutory appellate process before being forcibly evicted.

It held that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject property during this period to allow him to approach the DRAT for interim relief against the order dated 25.03.2026. If the petitioner fails to approach the Tribunal within 15 days, the respondents are at liberty to proceed according to law. The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.