The Kerala High Court on 4th June, 2025 held that multiple aggrieved persons can file a single, consolidated application under SARFAESI Act.

The case is Moideen Koya v. M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd [ OP (DRT) NO. 287 OF 2024] reported in 2025 KLT OnLine 2116.

Excerpts from the judgment of the case:

“ The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) provides a comprehensive framework for creditors to enforce security interests while also establishing safeguards for aggrieved parties, including tenants. Section 17(1) explicitly states that “any person (including borrower)” aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4) may apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The use of the term “any person” is broad and inclusive, encompassing not just borrowers but also third parties like tenants whose possessory or leasehold rights are affected by the secured creditor’s actions.”

“Rule 13A of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, read with Appendix X, prescribes the procedural format for such applications. Crucially, neither the Act nor the Rules contains any express prohibition against multiple aggrieved persons filing a single, consolidated application. The absence of such a prohibition suggests that the legislature did not intend to bar joint applications. This interpretation aligns with the general legal principle that procedural rules should facilitate, rather than obstruct, access to justice. The DRT, as a specialised forum, is expected to exercise flexibility in procedural matters to ensure that legitimate grievances are heard on merits.”

“ ……..DRT’s rejection of a consolidated application contradicts the legislative intent behind SARFAESI, which seeks expeditious resolution of disputes. Requiring each tenant to file a separate application would lead to repetitive pleadings, conflicting interim orders, and unnecessary delays— outcomes that defeat the purpose of a summary adjudication mechanism under Section 17. Procedural rules should be interpreted to facilitate dispute resolution while ensuring timely and diligent pursuit of legal remedies. Procedural law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice.”

Copy of the Judgement can be downloaded from here.