The court directed the respondent bank to implement the Debts Recovery Tribunal's settlement order and stayed coercive e-auction proceedings to ensure the petitioners' right to redeem the secured asset is not frustrated.

Digitally signed 2026:CGHC:18857 by SHAYNA KADRI NAFR

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or any other as court deems fit directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1, to accept the settlement amount of Rs. 11,23,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty-Three Thousand only) from the Petitioners in terms of the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 311/2025, and to give full effect to the said order within a time-bound manner;

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or any other as the court deems fit directing Respondent No.1 to act upon such payment and give effect to the settlement as already determined, without insisting upon routing the payment through Respondent No.2

10.3 Pass any other order(s), direction(s) or writ(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that the petitioners, being bona fide borrowers, had availed a housing loan facility from Respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 24,00,000/- on 24.09.2021, repayable in 144 equated monthly instalments (EMIs) extending up to the year 2031. Subsequently, they also availed a top-up loan of Rs. 11,00,000/- on 29.11.2022. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been making sincere efforts to adhere to the repayment schedule and, even in instances of delay caused due to financial constraints, they have paid applicable penal charges, thereby reflecting their bona fide intention to regularize the loan account. However, owing to certain unavoidable financial difficulties, the loan account came to be classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), pursuant to which proceedings were initiated, culminating in filing of S.A. No. 311/2025 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 08.01.2026, disposed of the said application and permitted the petitioners to settle the loan account upon payment of a sum of Rs. 11,23,000/-, with a corresponding right to regain possession of the secured asset, i.e., the mortgaged property situated at Mouja Khamtarai, Raipur. It is further the case of the petitioners that Respondent No. 2, an Asset Reconstruction Company, has taken measures and assumed control/constructive possession of the secured asset. In compliance with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners immediately approached Respondent No. 1 expressing their readiness and willingness to deposit the settlement amount. However, Respondent No. 1 directed them to coordinate with Respondent No. 2, thereby creating ambiguity regarding the mode of compliance. The petitioners submit that due to the inconsistent and non-cooperative stand adopted by the respondents, the order of the Tribunal has effectively become incapable of implementation. Despite the subsisting order permitting settlement, the respondents have proceeded to take coercive steps and have issued an e-auction notice dated 26.03.2026 for sale of the secured asset. It is contended that such action is premature and prejudicial, especially when the petitioners are ready and willing to comply with the Tribunal’s order. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions to ensure implementation of the order dated 08.01.2026 and to restrain coercive action.

3. Learned coun