No Interim Stay From High Court If DRT Already Considered Relief Sought: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a petitioner cannot approach the High Court seeking an interim stay when the same relief has already been considered, or could have been sought, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Court held that a party cannot use a writ petition to obtain interim protection that was not granted by the specialised tribunal.
Justice Om Narayan Rai delivered the ruling on August 28, 2026, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Jayasri Acharya. She had approached the High Court seeking protection against the bank taking possession of a property in which she claimed tenancy rights.
The petitioner had already initiated proceedings before the DRT under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act. The DRT had heard the matter and reserved its judgment on July 23, 2026, but had not granted an interim stay.
The High Court observed that if the petitioner had not sought a stay before the DRT, she could not seek that relief for the first time before the High Court. Similarly, if such relief had been sought before the DRT but was not expressly granted, the High Court would not ordinarily grant the same protection through a writ petition.
The Court made it clear that the DRT was the appropriate forum for seeking interim protection in proceedings arising under SARFAESI. Since the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy, she was required to pursue the relief before that forum rather than seeking a parallel interim order from the High Court.
The Court also noted that the DRT’s order showed that the matter had been finally heard and judgment reserved without granting a stay. In those circumstances, the absence of an interim order could not be converted into an opportunity to seek fresh interim protection through a writ petition.
The bank also pointed out that a Civil Court order dated August 12, 2026, had restrained forcible possession until September 15, 2026. Therefore, the immediate apprehension of dispossession was also addressed by an existing judicial order.
The High Court further found the writ petition problematic because it was directed against the actions of a private bank. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, the Court held that the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in the circumstances presented by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties pursuing SARFAESI proceedings must ordinarily seek interim protection from the DRT itself and cannot bypass that statutory forum merely because the desired interim relief has not been granted.
