Calcutta High Court Refuses Wife Relief Against Bank's SARFAESI Action Despite DV Act Protection Order

The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with HDFC Bank's SARFAESI action against a property despite a wife having secured a domestic violence protection Act order over the same premises. The Court noted that her challenge to the bank's possession notice is already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed,

“In view of availing of such alternative remedy, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Bench while disposing the instant writ petition is very much justified in not interfering with the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, as initiated by the respondent/Bank in respect of the self-same property as against the private respondent.”

The wife had secured a June 22, 2022 protection order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act from a Magistrate in Hooghly. The order restrained her husband from interfering with her peaceful possession of the property.

HDFC Bank, acting as a secured creditor, subsequently issued a June 13, 2024 possession notice under the SARFAESI Act seeking to take possession of the same property.

She claimed to have objected through a lawyer's notice and approached police authorities seeking protection. After allegedly receiving no assistance, she moved the High Court.

HDFC Bank argued that it was not a party to the DV Act proceedings and therefore could not be bound by the Magistrate's order. It also pointed out that the wife had already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking to set aside the possession notice and obtain interim protection.

The husband's counsel alleged that she had used the DV Act order to evict his parents. Her counsel denied the allegation.

The court accepted that the bank, not being a party to the DV Act case, was not bound by that order. It also noted that the wife had already invoked the statutory remedy before the DRT.

Holding that no interference was warranted, the court dismissed the appeal. It said it expected DRT-I, Kolkata, to consider her pending application and interim stay plea in accordance with law, preferably within 30 working days from communication of the server copy of the order.