Court emphasizes timely resolution of stay applications under SARFAESI Act to avoid unjust physical possession.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026)

The petitioner is an LPG distribution agent. The 3^rd respondent had availed a loan from the 1^st respondent Bank. When proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act , the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 23843 of 2025. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and deferred coercive proceedings for a period of one month.

2. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed S.A. No. 695 of

2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal along with I.A. No. 3854 of 2025 seeking stay. The I.A. was heard on 08.10.2025 and notice was ordered by registered post to the respondent Bank in the I.A. and summons in the S.A. Thereafter, the matter was posted to 22.10.2025, then to 24.11.2025, subsequently to 16.01.2026, and it now stands posted to

24.04.2026 for orders.

3. The limited relief sought by the petitioner is that, since he is conducting LPG distribution office in the secured asset, taking physical possession pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate would result in closure of the office, thereby preventing distribution of LPG cylinders to consumers.

4. In the above circumstances, this Court passed an interim order on 17.02.2026 staying the taking of physical possession of the premises from where the petitioner is conducting LPG distribution.

5. However, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submits that physical possession had already been taken at 1.29 p.m. on 17.02.2026 and that, after obtaining the interim order from this Court, the petitioner trespassed into the property and resumed possession. It is not in dispute that the respondent Bank has lodged a police complaint alleging trespass.

6. Since the stay application (I.A. No. 3854 of 2025) was heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, on 08.10.2025 and orders have not been passed till date, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have passed orders within a reasonable time, preferably within 30 days from the date of hearing. However, that has not occurred in the present case.

7. In such circumstances, I deemed it appropriate to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, to advance the matter and pass final orders in I.A. No. 3854 of 2025 on or before 10.03.2026.

It is made clear that the allegation of trespass pursuant to the interim order of this Court and the police complaint filed in that regard shall be dealt with independently by the competent authority, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-