High Court under Article 227 can grant limited interim relief to preserve DRT subject matter without merits adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The 1strespondent in O.P.(DRT) No.30 of 2026 filed this writ appeal underSection 5(i) of theKerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that original petition. 2. The 1strespondent herein filed O.P.(DRT)No.30 of 2026 under Article 227 of theConstitution of Indiaseeking the following reliefs:

“i. Call for records leading to Exts.P5 and P6 in S.A.No. 307 of 2025 pending before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Ernakulam, and direct the tribunal to dispose of the same at the earliest.

ii. Stay the operation and implementation of Ext.P7 till disposal of Exts.P5 and P6 by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Ernakulam”.

3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the 1st respondent herein is the applicant in S.A. No. 307 of 2025 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Ernakulam ( the ‘Tribunal’ for short). The 1^st respondent is a tenant in the secured asset of the appellant by virtue of a lease agreement with respondents 2 and 3. The 1^st respondent had been operating in the said premises since 2000. The physical possession of the secured asset was taken over by the appellant. At the time of taking physical possession, stock worth Rs.3,46,95,850/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty-Six Lakh Ninety-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) of the 1^st respondent was lying in the secured asset. The appellant Bank has clearly failed to acknowledge the stock as belonging to the 1^st respondent, but is proceeding as if the same belonged to the borrower of the appellant. In fact, one of the partners of the 1^st respondent happened to be the guarantor of the borrower who had mortgaged the secured asset with the appellant. Merely by virtue of such a connection, the appellant Bank has proceeded against the properties of the 1^st respondent. In fact, the borrower in the SA challenging the measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), viz S. A. No.407 of 2021, had clearly contended that the properties in the secured asset belong to the tenant. Despite such admissions, the appellant Bank has initiated measures to conduct a public auction of the movable assets of the 1^st respondent worth Rs.3,46,95,850/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty-Six Lakh Ninety-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) for a paltry sum of Rs.8,24,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Twenty-Four Thousand only). Though the 1^st respondent, immediately upon receiving information regarding the sale, had challenged the same, the tribunal has posted the case for hearing on the date of sale, paving the way for unnecessary creation of 3^rd party interest, apart from causing grave prejudice to the 1^st respondent. Hence, the 1^st respondent filed the OP(DRT).

4. In the OP(DRT), the appellant filed a counter affidavit dated 19.01.2026, producing therewith Exts.R1A and R1B documents. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that judgment read thus:

“2. This Court notice that Ext.P7 advertisement for the sale of the movable assets has been made only on 03.01.2026, and that the petitioner moved to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, D.R.T) on 12.01.2026. The D.R.T has not taken up the matter, is the grievance of the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was specially mentioned orally before the D.R.T on 16.01.2026, which is averred in paragraph No.4 of the Original Petition.

3. Nevertheless, the matter stands posted to tomorrow (20.01.2026), that is to say, the date on which, th