Shushila Agrahari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.04.03 10:59:55 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:15485

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1478 of 2025

¶7

1 - Shushila Agrahari W/o Late Shri Suresh Agrahari Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Jaistambh Chowk, Lormi Road, Kargi Road Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Satish Agrahari S/o Late Shri Suresh Agrahari Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Jaistambh Chowk, Lormi Road, Kargi Road Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Sandeep Agrahari S/o Late Shri Suresh Agrahari Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Jaistambh Chowk, Lormi Road, Kargi Road Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - ICICI Home Finance Company Limited Through Its Authorized Officer, Having Its Registered Office At Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 And Its Branch Office At 1st Floor, Gokul Roshan, Plot No. 25 And 26, Zenda Chowk, Nagpur 440001

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioners	: Mr. AbhyudaySingh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

02.04.2025

¶21

1 Heard Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Ritesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶22

2 The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief(s):-

¶23

“10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent no. 2. to consider the application and request for OTS as exercising their right of redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶24

10.2 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ restricting the Respondent no. 2 from raking any coercive action against the Petitioner and also from creating any third party right till their application under Section 13(8) dated 09.09.2024 is not decided.

¶25

10.3 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent no. 2 to accept the amount towards final settlement and thus provide no dues certificate to the Petitioners and release the deeds of the property

¶26

3

¶27

mortgaged upon the payment of the due amount to the satisfaction of the Respondent no.2.

¶28

10.4 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of litigation to the petitioner.

¶29

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶30

3 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that since the sale certificate has been issued in respect of the property in dispute, as such, he has to approach before the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, ‘DRT’) seeking appropriate relief. However, the petitioners are still in possession of the property in dispute, as such, till the hearing of the interim application before the DRT, they may not be dispossessed.

¶31

4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 though objected the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, he has not disputed the fact that the petitioners are in actual possession of the property in dispute.

¶32

5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to approach before the DRT along with an application for grant of interim relief and the DRT is expected to take decision on the application for grant of interim relief within some stipulated period. The petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application before the DRT within a period of two

¶33

4

¶34

weeks and the DRT is directed to consider the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of an application before the DRT.

¶35

6 Till the decision of the interim application, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today in respect of the possession of the property.

¶36

7 With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶39

Yogesh

Shushila Agrahari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushila Agrahari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishvanath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikam Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samman Capital Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaleshwar Markandey Vs Chief Election Commissioner

Manikant Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heerabai Vs State of Chhattisgarh