#possession notice

The Karnataka High Court has held that borrowers challenging SARFAESI Act notices - including possession and auction orders - must first exhaust their statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. Invoking Article 226 to bypass this exclusive remedy undermines the legislative intent of streamlined debt recovery and leaves borrowers without the tribunal’s specialized expertise.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that borrowers who delay challenging SARFAESI proceedings until the eve of asset possession are abusing judicial urgency protocols. This practice undermines the DRT’s statutory role and enables tactical delays that prejudice secured creditors, setting a clear precedent against last-minute writ petitions in financial recovery cases.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that banks cannot proceed with possession under the SARFAESI Act without serving notice to every legal heir of a deceased borrower, even if some heirs have been named. The court further held that initiation of proceedings beyond the limitation period renders the entire action void, reinforcing that procedural fairness under natural justice is non-negotiable in debt recovery actions affecting family homes.