The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, on 25 July 2025, before Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla, dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The DRT had granted conditional interim relief against the forcible possession of two mortgaged properties, subject to the deposit of ₹2 crores.
The petitioners, who were classified as MSMEs, alleged that the respondent bank had violated RBI guidelines applicable to MSME borrowers and argued that the DRT’s failure to consider these submissions amounted to a violation of natural justice. The High Court, however, observed that such contentions had not been raised before the DRT, and hence non-consideration could not be construed as denial of opportunity.
The Court further noted the petitioners’ questionable conduct, including the filing and withdrawal of a criminal revision during the pendency of the proceedings and alleged acts of forcibly entering one of the secured properties, which cast serious doubt on their bona fides.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to bypass the alternate remedies under the SARFAESI Act, unless there is a patent violation of statutory provisions or RBI guidelines. Since no such violation was established and the plea regarding RBI regulations was not raised at the appropriate forum, the petition was held to be not maintainable.Holding that the petitioners had attempted to mislead the Court by raising false arguments to attract writ jurisdiction, the Bench imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000, payable to the respondent bank within 30 days.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners- Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Agrawal A/w Adv. Shri Anuj Agrawal
For the Respondent Bank- Adv. Shri Kapil Duggal
