SARFAESI Section 14 execution can proceed despite pending DRT proceedings unless interim stay is granted.

Pending proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT do not, by themselves, prevent execution of a Section 14 order where no interim stay has been granted. The authority acting under Section 14 performs a ministerial, non-adjudicatory function and is bound to assist in taking possession of the secured asset. In the absence of Tribunal protection, a writ court should not interfere with the direction to execute the Section 14 order, and no jurisdictional error or perversity is made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court should interfere with a direction to execute an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 when proceedings under Section 17 of the Act are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal but no interim stay has been granted.

Analysis: The order under Section 14 had not been stayed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The authorities acting under Section 14 perform a ministerial function and are bound to assist in taking possession of the secured asset. In the absence of interim protection from the Tribunal, pendency of the securitisation application does not by itself justify restraining execution of the Section 14 order.

Conclusion: The direction to execute the Section 14 order was held to be legal and no jurisdictional error or perversity was found warranting interference. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 do not bar execution of an order under Section 14 of the Act unless the competent Tribunal has granted interim stay, because the authority under Section 14 performs a ministerial and non-adjudicatory function.

---