Writ appeals against interim orders under SARFAESI proceedings are maintainable, clarifying that the characterization of orders determines their applicability under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

[WA Nos.3045/2025 & 3046/2025]

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The appellants, who are third parties and are sought to be impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 in OP(DRT)No.350 of 2025 and as respondents 1 to 3 in OP(DRT)No.348 of 2025 filed W.A.No.3045 of 2025 and W.A.No.3046 of 2025, respectively, under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the common interim order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in those original petitions. Since the point to be considered in these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in OP(DRT)No.350 of 2025 are the applicants in S.A.No.182 of 2025 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ernakulam (‘the Tribunal’ for short). Similarly, the petitioners in OP(DRT)No.348 of 2025 are the applicants in S.A.No.183 of 2025 pending before the Tribunal. The petitioners in both the OP(DRT)s are borrowers and guarantors of term loans availed by them from the Union Bank of India (‘the Bank’ for short), which is the 4^th respondent in both the writ appeals. When the loan accounts were classified as Non Performing Assets (‘NPA’ for short) and the bank initiated recovery steps under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), the petitioners filed the respective S.A.s before the Tribunal contending that the secured assets are agricultural land and they are exempted under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the S.A.s, the 4^th respondent-bank issued a fresh e-auction sale notice dated 19.09.2025, which was produced before the Tribunal as Annexure A11. Therefore, the petitioners filed interlocutory applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to amend the SAs to incorporate the challenge against the said notice, which were numbered as I.A.No.3940 of 2025 in S.A.No.182 of 2025 and I.A.No.3942 of 2025 in S.A.No.183 of 2025. They have also filed interlocutory applications in the SAs for stay, production of the valuation report and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Alleging that the inaction on the part of the Tribunal in disposing of those interlocutory applications amounts to failure of jurisdiction under Section 17 (7) of the SARFAESI Act, petitioners in the OP(DRT)s approached this Court by filing the respective original petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , seeking a direction to the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the interlocutory applications within a time frame fixed by this Court and also other ancillary reliefs.

3. On 18.11.2025, when the original petitions came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned common interim order, which reads thus:

“Petitioner is directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,16,00,000/-(Rupees one crore sixteen lakhs only) on or before 28.11.2025 by 5 pm.

2. The total outstanding amount as on 04.11.2025 is Rs.3,96,31,161.77/- and the balance to be remitted by the petitioner as on date comes to Rs.2,31,99,477.77/- with other charges and interest.

3. The amount already deposited, and the amount sought to be deposited shall be kept in a separate account. Since I have permitted the petitioner to pay the amount, 75% balance, if tendered by the auction purchaser, need not be accepted for the time being.

Post on 02.12.2025, interim order is extended till then.”

4. The appellants, who are the auction purchasers of the prope