The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has permitted borrowers facing recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to renew their request before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur, for protection concerning a property situated in Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas granted the interim protection of possession for 15 days, taking into account a statement that ₹1 crore had already been deposited.
The petitioners were borrowers of the bank, which had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, following their default.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
Challenging the bank’s action, the borrowers filed Securitisation Application No. 241 of 2026 before the DRT at Nagpur. They sought protection of their possession over properties situated in both Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.
However, the Tribunal’s order recorded that the borrowers’ counsel had stated that he would not press for relief concerning the property located in Madhya Pradesh.
Before the High Court, counsel for the borrowers relied on Section 17(1A) of the SARFAESI Act to contend that the Nagpur Tribunal could also consider the dispute concerning the property situated outside Maharashtra.
While acknowledging the earlier statement recorded by the Tribunal, counsel submitted that the plea concerning the Madhya Pradesh property could nevertheless be considered and decided in view of that provision.
The High Court found substance in the submissions and allowed the borrowers to renew their prayer before the DRT, Nagpur.
The Bench directed that, if the borrowers renewed their prayer concerning the Madhya Pradesh property within two days of the High Court’s order, the Tribunal must decide it within three weeks from the date of the order.
The direction enables the borrowers to place their request before the Tribunal again despite the earlier statement that the relief would not be pressed. The High Court did not itself decide whether the borrowers were entitled to the substantive relief concerning that property.
To balance the equities, the Court considered the statement made at the Bar that an amount of ₹1 crore had already been deposited.
On that basis, it protected the petitioners’ possession for 15 days from October 6, 2026. The Bench expressly stated that the interim protection would lapse after that period.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
