Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Order Dismissing Contempt Plea Against Kotak Bank In SARFAESI Case

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court order dismissing a contempt petition alleging that Kotak Mahindra Bank had violated the High Court's direction to give at least seven days' notice before taking physical possession of a flat under the SARFAESI Act.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan noted that the High Court had already provided sufficient safeguards to enable the petitioner to remove her belongings from the flat. It therefore found no reason to interfere with the order.

“We find that the High Court has granted sufficient safeguards to the petitioner, so as to enable her to take her belongings because before taking actual possession of the same. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter,” the Supreme Court said.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara argued that his client was neither a borrower nor a guarantor, but a third party and bona fide purchaser of the property.

“I'm not a borrower. I'm not a guarantor. I am an entirely a third person, a bona fide purchaser,” he submitted.

Nedumpara also questioned the possession proceedings, arguing that the Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had allegedly been passed without notice to his client.

“My grievance is mainly, the magistrate has passed an order behind my back. Behind my back, no notice was issued to me,” he said.

He further submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had declined interim protection. He said his client's civil proceedings concerning the alleged fraud were also pending, while possession had meanwhile been taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Nedumpara also raised concerns about her belongings in the flat.

“The belongings, what will I do with my belongings? I've rendered homeless. That's it. I came before Your Lordships…” he submitted.

He argued that the Bombay High Court's September 24, 2025 order had specifically required seven days' notice before physical possession was taken. According to him, the notice subsequently issued by the Tahsildar gave less than the stipulated period.

The Bench, however, focused on the safeguards already put in place by the High Court for removal of the petitioner's belongings. The Court indicated that she would be permitted to take her articles from the flat, with the Tahsildar preparing an inventory and the police providing assistance.

The Supreme Court accordingly declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's dismissal of the contempt petition.

The dispute arose from SARFAESI proceedings concerning a flat originally mortgaged to ICICI Bank. The loan was subsequently assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank.

After the original borrowers defaulted, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued in June 2009. The District Magistrate, Thane, subsequently passed an order in March 2010 directing the authorities to take physical possession of the flat.

On September 24, 2025, the Bombay High Court directed that the petitioner be given at least seven days' notice before physical possession was taken. The Court also recorded her undertaking that if the DRT did not grant interim protection against dispossession, she would not obstruct the Bank from taking possession.

The Tahsildar issued a notice on October 7, 2025, fixing October 13 for taking possession. After the DRT declined interim protection, possession was taken on October 13.

The petitioner thereafter filed contempt proceedings, alleging that the October 7 notice did not provide the full seven-day period contemplated by the High Court's earlier order.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition. It held that the shorter notice appeared to have resulted from a miscalculation at the Tahsildar's office and did not amount to wilful disobedience of the Court's order.

The High Court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to remove her belongings under the supervision of the Tahsildar and police. It directed that an inventory be prepared and the entire process be videographed.