The petitioners, borrowers from the respondent Bank, faced recovery proceedings. After a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, when the Bank sought to take symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of the Act, the petitioners filed S.A. No.74 of 2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.

2. Pending the SA, with no interim direction, the Bank took symbolic possession, and later invoked Section 14 for taking physical possession. Then the petitioners filed S.A. No.248 of 2017. Finally, the Tribunal dismissed both the S.As for non-prosecution. The Bank took physical possession of the property and fixed the date for sale, after serving notice on the petitioners, though.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.23936 of 2018, which was dismissed on 24th July 2018. This Court has observed that if the Bank took possession of the property pending the restoration applications before the Tribunal, that might give the petitioners a new cause of action. And they can as well approach the Tribunal, subject to other legal parameters. Indeed, the petitioners seem to have filed S.A. No.313 of 2018. The Tribunal issued notice and posted it to 07.08.2018; incidentally that is the date, when the Bank proposed to sell the property. Now the petitioners have filed this writ petition—against an order of adjournment.

4. Sri Shaijan C. George, the petitioners' counsel, has strenuously contended that Section 17(1) is unambiguous. According to him, once an S.A. is filed, Section 17(1) mandates that the Bank can take no further proceedings until the Tribunal adjudicates the issue. It could proceed further only then. In other words, Section 17(1) statutorily amounts to an automatic stay of further proceedings.

5. In the alternative, Sri George has submitted that the Tribunal had known that the Bank fixed 07.08.2018 as the date for auctioning the property. Therefore, rather than take up the interlocutory applications immediately, the Tribunal—as the learned counsel puts it—ironically posted the matter to the same date: 07.08.2018. To support his contentions that the Tribunal’s approach is legally flawed, Sri George has relied on Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank v. Ashok Saw Mill, (2009) 8 SCC 366.

6. Sri George also contends that the petitioners have been making all bona fide efforts to clear the loan. To elaborate, he submits that earlier the petitioners approached the Bank and, on 03.08.2018, submitted a representation, expressing their willingness to clear the debt in instalments. And, according to Sri George, the petitioners have also given a cheque for Rs.50 lakh, dated 17.08.2018, a post-dated one. To bring home the petitioners’ supposed bona fides, Sri George submits that recently the petitioners have paid Rs.30 lakh and closed one loan account.

7. In the end, Sri George submits that the Bank is proceeding to sell the property with reckless speed and utter disregard for the legal consequences. Instead, if the Bank provides "breathing time" to the petitioners, they will discharge the entire debt. And, in fact, they have been making all efforts to clear the loan, at the earliest.

8. In response, Sri Krishnadas P. Nair, the Bank's counsel, submits that the petitioners have repeatedly been abusing the Court process. He stresses that they have no bona fides. According to him, often, the Bank has offered them a long rope, so to say, to have the account, if not settled, at least regularized. Sri Nair also contends that even now if the petitioners have given any concrete proposal agreeing to clear the loan, the Bank is not averse to providing some more time to the petitioners. For this, the petitioners, Sri Nair insists, should pay substantial amount upfront and the balance in a few installments.

9. On the practical difficulties the Bank faces, Sri Nair has elaborated. According to him, if the courts often interfere with the Bank's exercising the statutory powers for recovering the loan—essentially public money—the Banks find