M/S. N.R. Marketings Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:45633

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 3887 of 2025

¶6

1 - M/s. N.R. Marketings 15, New Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Authorised Partner- Mr. Navratan Bhattad S/o Shri P.R. Bhattad, Aged About 48 Years, R/o- 15, New Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, S - 2-48, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India Pin- 492001.

¶10

2 - Chief Judicial Magistrate (Acting Under Ministerial/ Administrative Capacity U/s 14 Of The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Sarfaesi Act)), District Court Premises, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India Pin- 492001.

¶11

3 - Tahsildar - Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, Pin492001.

¶12

4 - M/s. Authum Investment And Infrastructure Limited (A Company Registered Under Company Act 1956) (Cin - L51109mh1982plc319008),

¶13

2

¶14

Having Its Registered Address - 707, Raheja Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Pin- 400021.

¶15

5 - M/s. Reliance Commercial Finance Limited (A Company Registered Under Company Act 1956 Having Company Identification No. U66010mh2000plc128301), Reliance Centre, 6th Floor, South Wing, Off-Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Pin 400055.

¶16

6 - Branch Manager, M/s. Reliance Commercial Finance Limited, Having Their Branch Office At 3rd Floor, Simran Tower, Opposite Lic Building, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, Pin- 492001.

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Raj Kamal Singh, Advocate through VC assisted by Shri Suryapratap Yudhveer Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL
For Respondent No.4	: Shri Ritesh Sharma, Advocate

¶19

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

08/09/2025

¶22

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶23

The short question for consideration in the present petition is whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as the alleged recovery is already barred by

¶25

3

¶26

limitation. It is contended that the mortgage deed in question being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. He further argued that respondent No.5 has preferred an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking possession of the mortgaged property and for recovery of the loan, even though at the relevant time, the concerned authority was not in existence. On the strength of these submissions, it is urged that the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves to be invoked.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Kerala State financial Enterprises Ltd. Vs.C.S.Saji and Others (2018) 14 SC 486 , wherein it has been held that for invoking action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Debt in question must be a legally enforceable debt. It is urged that in the present case, since the claim of the respondent-Bank is barred by limitation, the debt is not legally enforceable and therefore the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are liable to be quashed.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as and respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur by filing SA No. 13/2025 which is pending consideration. It is further submitted that an efficacious alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsels have also drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by the Division Bench of this

¶29

4

¶30

Court in WA No. 518/2025, dated 23.07.2025, wherein it has been categorically held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the disputes arising under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶31

Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the objections raised by the respondents. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal of grievances of borrowers, including the right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Once such statutory remedy is available and has been invoked, this Court would not be justified in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

The Apex Court in the matter of Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held that entertaining writ petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters governed by the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has serious adverse impact on the rights of banks and financial institutions to recover their dues and such practice has been strongly deprecated. The same principle has been reiterated in PHR Invent Eduction Certificate V. UCO Bank and Others (2024) 6 SCC 559, wherein it was observed that petitions ought not be entertained when a statutory forum is available under the Act.

¶33

Further, the Division Bench of this Curt in WA No. 518 of 2025 has in para 12 of the judgment held in unequivocal terms that disputes arising under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are to be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and recourse to the writ jurisdiction in such

¶34

5

¶35

circumstances is impermissible.

¶36

In the light of the aforesaid binding precedents of the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶40

Digitally signed SUGUNA by SUGUNADUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.09.10 18:09:00 +0530

M/S. N.R. Marketings v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. N.R. Marketings 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bankat Singh Vs Janardan Singh

Deva Das Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Death (Gopal Anant) Mahendra Singh Anant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yogeshwari Bai Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhani Pujari Vs State of Chhattisgarh