Disposed

M/S. Maa Santoshi Industries v. Dena Bank

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2025WPC/309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of illegal possession by banks. Court directed Tahsildar to demarcate disputed property in presence of all parties including bank and other proprietors within 7 days before deciding possession.

What did the court decide?

Directed Tahsildar, Durg to make demarcation of the property in presence of parties within 7 days and pass necessary order regarding possession.

M/S. Maa Santoshi Industries Vs Dena Bank — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:6654

NAFR

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.07 10:25:15 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 309 of 2025

¶7

1 - M/s. Maa Santoshi Industries Proprietor- Smt. Suraj Kiran Chandak W/o- Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chandak, Now Aged About- 53 Years, CasteMaheshwari, R/o- Padmanabhpur Colony, House No.- H.I.G. 23, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Dena Bank Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Officer, Surana Complex, Station Road, Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Bank Of Baroda Through Chief Manager And Authorized Officer, Branch Office, Ganj Para, G.E. Road, Ganj Para, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Collector/ District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Tehsildar Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Nayab Tehsildar Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶15

6 - M/s. Maa Sharda Trader Through Proprietor- Ramesh Chandak, S/oLate P.D. Chandak, Aged About- 57 Years, R/o Village Jevra-Sirsa, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶16

7 - M/s. Maa Sharda Buildcom Through Its Proprietor- Mehul Chandak, S/o- Ramesh Chandak, Aged About- 37 Years, R/o- House No. 31, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶17

8 - Station House Officer Outpost- Jewra-Sirsa, Police Station- Pulgaon, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶18

9 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶19

10 - Maal Jamadar Court To The Tehsildar Durg District Durg (C.G.)

¶20

¶21

11 - Patwari Patwari Halka Jewra Sirsa Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.)

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Resp. No. 1 & 2	: Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate
For State	: Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Resp. No. 6 & 7	: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate

¶24

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

05/02/2025

¶27

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondents’ authority to remove the illegal possession over the property possessed by respondent No. 2 & 3.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/bank has taken possession of a particular part of the property of the petitioner, though the said part of property is not subject land of the mortgaged property. He submits that even the access to the factory of the petitioner has been locked by the Bank Authority and the petitioner is not able to run her factory.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, referring to the reply filed by them, would submit that the Bank vide its letter dated 21/11/2024 requested the Tahsildar, Durg for demarcation of the questioned part of the property, as the possession of the property in question was handed over to the respondent/Bank by the Maal Jamadar on 11/12/2024 pursuance to a proceeding initiated under the provisions of Section 14 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, which was owned by respondent No. 6 & 7. He submits that if there is any dispute of area of property, then the Tahsildar may be directed

¶30

¶31

to make a joint demarcation as well as to redress the grievance of the parties in presence of the affected parties.

¶32

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the reply submitted by the respondent/Bank.

¶33

From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that there is some dispute to the demarcation of the property, because the respondent/Bank is claiming possession over the part of the property in question which was handed over to them by Maal Jamadar on 11/12/2024 pursuance to the proceeding initiated under the provision of Section 14 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶34

Considering the above aspect of the case, the Tahsildar, Durg is directed to make demarcation of the property in question in presence of the parties including respondent No. 6 & 7 by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties within a period of 7 days from today and pass necessary order regarding the possession of petitioner as well as of the respondent Bank in accordance with law.

¶35

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶38

Rahul

M/S. Maa Santoshi Industries v. Dena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Maa Santoshi Industries v. Dena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aisha Begam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahabir Enterprises Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lekhram Mohliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh