TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1. Heard Mr. Raman Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Ayush Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1424 of 2026 whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1/Aavas Financiers Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking execution of the order dated 24.03.2025 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur to comply with and execute the said order within a period of 30 days. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vi. Award cost of the proceedings in favour of the Appellants. vii. That, this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to pass any other relief/order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice, along with cost of the proceeding" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/Bank initiated proceedings against the present appellants under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and obtained an order dated 24.03.2025 from the District Magistrate, Raipur under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the secured asset. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Securitisation Application No. 538 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecuritisation Application No. 538 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur challenging the very order dated 24.03.2025 passed under Section 14 of the Act. It is submitted that once the competent statutory forum was already seized of the matter, the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised judicial restraint and refrained from issuing directions permitting coercive execution of the same order, particularly when the legality and validity of the said action is still pending adjudication before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge proceeded solely on the ground that no interim stay had been granted by the Tribunal, without appreciating that permitting execution during pendency of the statutory proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Magistrate, Raipur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as admittedly no interim stay has been granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in favour of the Appellants. It is submitted that the State authorities are under statutory obligation to assist in implementation of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act and have no adjudicatory role in the dispute between the secured creditor and the borrowers. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order is called for in the present writ appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is evident that the order dated 24.03.2025....