Court affirms that Domestic Violence Act protection orders do not bind secured creditors not party to proceedings; directs expeditious resolution by Debts Recovery Tribunal.
In a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal by Shabnam Ara Yesmin against the State of West Bengal and others, affirming the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, held that interference through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was unjustified as the petitioner had already availed of an alternative remedy by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
The case arose from an order dated 11th August 2025 by a Single Bench, which declined to interfere with the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank against Yesmin. The petitioner had previously obtained a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband, the private respondent, preventing interference with her residence. However, the High Court clarified that such orders do not affect secured creditors unless they were party to the Domestic Violence proceedings.
The judgment emphasized that the petitioner had already challenged the bank's possession notice by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, seeking its cancellation or quashing. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Bench directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in Kolkata to expedite the resolution of the petitioner's application, including the interim stay request, within 30 working days from receiving the court's order. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in SARFAESI Act proceedings when a statutory mechanism for redressal is available.
The ruling serves as a significant precedent in delineating the interaction between the SARFAESI Act and the Domestic Violence Act, reaffirming the position that secured creditors are not bound by protection orders unless explicitly made party to such proceedings. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, maintaining the focus on procedural adherence.
Bottom line:-
SARFAESI Act proceedings cannot be interfered with by the High Court through a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act do not bind secured creditors unless they are parties to the DV Act proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
SARFAESI Act, 2002 Section 17(1), Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 23(2), Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Shabnam Ara Yesmin v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2898699
