Gujarat HC Dismisses SARFAESI Plea, Cites Petitioner's "Lack of Vigilance" and "Slumber" After Filing Appeal [Read Order]

The Gujarat High Court, in a recent order, has dismissed a Special Civil Application filed under Article 226, emphasising that courts will not grant "breathing time" to litigants who fail to diligently pursue their remedies. The plea under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was dismissed, citing petitioner's "Lack of Vigilance" and "Slumber" after filing the appeal.

The case involved M/s Lytebrick Build LLP, which approached the High Court against the Bank of India. The petitioner sought to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of their properties under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, pending an appeal they had filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

The core issue was the petitioner's request for an interim stay on the bank's actions. The petitioner argued that their appeal against a DRT order (dated 20.09.2025) was filed promptly the next day but remained unlisted before the DRAT, Chennai, due to administrative reasons.

They feared that if the bank took possession in the interim, their appeal would become redundant. The bank vehemently opposed this, contending that the appeal was not listed because the petitioner failed to clear procedural office objections, demonstrating a lack of vigilance.

The petitioner's counsel requested the Court to grant 'indulgence and accommodation' to prevent coercive steps. Per contra, the senior advocate for the bank, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, pointed out that while the appeal was filed promptly, the petitioner had not taken the necessary steps to remove office objections to get the matter listed for hearing.

The Division Bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Niral R. Mehta, while acknowledging that the Court normally shows indulgence to litigants, was not persuaded in this case. The Court observed that indisputably, the appeal was filed promptly but had since remained under objection without the petitioner taking steps to clear them.

The Court held that it would not 'help those litigants who are not acting vigilantly and those who are gone in slumber after filing of the appeal.'

Finding the petitioner's conduct to be lacking in diligence, the Court concluded that their case did not merit any interference. Accordingly, the Special Civil Application was dismissed, allowing the bank to proceed with its actions under the SARFAESI Act.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates