The court determined that a learned Single Judge's discretion to order the abeyance of coercive actions must conform to statutory provisions under the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing limits on appellate jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The respondents in O.P.(DRT)No.173 of 2025 are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2025 in that original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the extent the appellants, namely, the Union Bank of India and its Authorised Officer, are directed to keep in abeyance further coercive steps against the respondents-petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), till appropriate orders are passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Ext.P3 application for stay and Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-deposit filed in Ext.P2 appeal challenging Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam in S.A.No.404 of 2024.

2. The respondents-petitioners filed S.A.No.404 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the demand notice dated 31.01.2024, possession notices dated 11.04.2024 issued by the 2^nd appellant Authorised Officer as well as the sale notice and Section 14 measures initiated by the Bank against the secured assets in respect of the financial facilities availed by them from the 1^st appellant Bank. The amount mentioned in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was Rs.3,01,59,964.99. The Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 dismissed S.A.No.404 of 2024 with a cost of Rs.30,000/- to the 1^st appellant Bank on a finding that the applicants, the respondents herein, caused unnecessary delay in the securitisation proceedings without any valid ground. In Ext.P1 order the Tribunal found that the applicants have raised only general averments challenging the measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. No specific illegality in the securitization proceedings causing substantial prejudice to the applicants is raised in the Securitisation Application. As evident from the endorsement made on Ext.P1 order, a free copy of the same was delivered to the respondents herein from the office of the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 22.04.2025.

3. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam in S.A.No.404 of 2024, the respondents herein filed Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, on 15.05.2025, which is assigned with Diary No.900 of 2025. The said appeal is accompanied by Ext.P3 I.A. with Diary No.902 of 2025 filed under Section 18 (1), seeking stay of all further proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, pending disposal of the appeal; and Ext.P4 I.A. with Diary No.901 of 2025 filed under Section 18 (1), seeking an order of complete waiver of statutory pre-deposit to be made to the Bank of the outstanding dues and to pass such other suitable order or orders as the Appellate Tribunal may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The document marked as Ext.P5 is another I.A. with Diary No.1105 of 2025 filed on 26.05.2025 under Section 18 (1), seeking an order to hear the waiver petition, i.e., Ext.P4 I.A., on an urgent basis and pass appropriate orders. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a copy of the notice dated 10.06.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by