The court emphasized the necessity for borrowers to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act before any immediate action against them can be justified.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners admittedly are borrowers, and the last payment by them towards repayment of the loan is in July 2024. The first respondent has initiated the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act']. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 03.04.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39/2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere [for short, 'the concerned Court']. The concerned Court, in entertaining the respondent’s application for assistance in taking possession, has allowed the application appointing a learned Member of the Bar as Commissioner.

2. Sri Chandrasekhar G M, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is categorical that though the order is dated 03.04.2025, the respondent has not taken further steps to take possession. Insofar as merits of the petitioners' grievance, Sri Chandrasekhar G M submits that:

[a] the petitioners are not served with the notices either under Section 13 [2] or Section 13 [4] of the SARFAESI Act, [b] the petitioners will deposit all the monies and this is made known to the respondent even before the present petition, [c] the respondent has refused to receive any amount adverting to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, which are underway, and that has resulted in the impugned order.

3. When queried in the light of the alternative remedy that is available to the petitioners, Sri Chandrasekhar G M, reiterating that the petitioners will settle the dues without precipitation, submits that the petitioners' subject property is within Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, that if there is any precipitation with the onset of monsoon, the petitioners will lose shelter, and that therefore, this Court must provide for an intermediate arrangement lest the consequence be irreversible with multiplicity of proceedings.

4. This Court must opine that the petitioners must avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as all questions are in a factual matrix that must be examined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT] under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and that if the respondent, for reasons, has not availed assistance in all these five months in terms of the impugned order, it must not precipitate for the next eight [8] weeks. Further this Court opines that if the petitioners cannot avail the liberty that is now allowed, the respondent will be at liberty to act in terms of the impugned order. Furthermore, if the petitioners avails the remedy in terms of the liberty within the time now permitted, the DRT shall consider the continuation of the interim order independent of the arrangement that is provided for by this Court.