Temporary Protection Granted to Enable Borrower to Approach the Assigned DRT.

The petitioners challenged a Naib Tahsildar’s notice dated 16 September 2026, issued to take possession of their residential property pursuant to an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioner in person said he received the notice on 13 October 2026, that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, was not functioning, and that he needed time to approach DRT-2, Ahmedabad, which was handling Jabalpur matters.

He also stated that he was willing to deposit 75% of the loan amount by 20 January 2027 and sought protection against coercive action in the meantime.

The State opposed the request, describing the petition as belated; it also stated that the proposed deposit would be considered by the bank.

Whether the petitioners should be granted temporary protection from coercive possession action to enable them to approach the DRT, given the stated non-functioning of DRT Jabalpur.

Whether the Court should adjudicate the challenge to the Section 14 order or the SARFAESI proceedings on their merits.

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides for assistance in taking possession of secured assets, while Section 17 provides the borrower a statutory remedy before the DRT against measures taken under the Act.

The petitioner cited Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610, and M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036, concerning statutory safeguards in sale proceedings and redemption rights; he also referred to Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, and South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, (2023) 17 SCC 311, on judicial review where an alternative remedy is available.

The Court did not decide or apply these precedents to determine the merits; it limited its order to allowing time to approach the DRT and granting temporary protection.

The Court considered the petitioner’s stated difficulty in accessing the DRT, the imminent possession action, and his representation that he would deposit 75% of the loan amount by 20 January 2027.

Although the State questioned the delay in approaching the Court, the Court granted the petitioner 15 working days to approach DRT-2, Ahmedabad, and restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps until 20 November 2026.

It did not examine the validity of the Section 14 order, the alleged defects in the SARFAESI process, or the petitioner’s entitlement to relief on the merits.

The petitioner was granted 15 working days to approach DRT-2, Ahmedabad, and the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioners until 20 November 2026.

The petitioner was also permitted to approach the bank regarding settlement within 10 days and directed to do so before 20 January 2027 if able to make a payment before then.