Writ court may briefly defer coercive possession to enable borrowers to obtain relief from the DRT.

The petitioners challenged the order/memo dated 27 August 2026 directing the concerned revenue authority to take physical possession of their property on 8 September 2026 and hand it over to the Bank of India.

The petitioners stated that they had filed a securitisation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on 2 August 2026 challenging the underlying order dated 17 January 2025, and that the application was pending. They had also sought urgent listing before the DRT.

The Bank opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners had approached the Court belatedly, had not come with clean hands, and that the writ petition was not maintainable.

The High Court noted that the DRT, Jabalpur was not functioning properly because no Presiding Officer had been appointed and matters were being taken up before the DRT, Ahmedabad.

The Court applied the principle that disputes concerning the legality of bank recovery and possession proceedings are to be adjudicated by the competent DRT, particularly where a securitisation application is pending, rather than by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.

The Court also exercised limited equitable and exceptional interim jurisdiction to prevent coercive action for a short period where institutional difficulties in the functioning of the DRT could otherwise prejudice the petitioners’ opportunity to seek effective relief.

The order was expressly confined to the exceptional facts of the case and was not to be treated as a precedent.

The High Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioners’ challenge because the relevant issues fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the petitioners had already instituted a securitisation application.

However, since physical possession was scheduled for the date of the hearing and the DRT, Jabalpur was not functioning normally due to the absence of a Presiding Officer, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the petitioners’ opportunity to argue for interim protection before the DRT.

Balancing the Bank’s recovery proceedings against the practical difficulty faced by the petitioners, the Court granted a limited period of ten days for obtaining a stay from the DRT, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The petitioners were granted ten days to obtain an order of stay from the concerned DRT, and no coercive steps were permitted against them during that period.

The Court clarified that the order was passed in exceptional circumstances, would not operate as a precedent, and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.