Dismissed¶39

M/S Nanak Traders v. Axis Bank Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2026MCC/470/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur) dismisses MCC No. 470 of 2026 (decided 11/05/2026, Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) filed by M/s Nanak Traders and the Tanwani family seeking modification/stay of the order dated 17.04.2026 in WPC No. 1556/2026, which had directed compliance with CJM Raipur's Section 14 SARFAESI order dated 23.06.2025 in MJC No. 1012/2025 for handing over possession of the secured property to Axis Bank Ltd.; borrowers' pending DRT Jabalpur appeal S.A. No. 396/2025 and unavailed opportunities noted; no interference, MCC dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 17.04.2026 in WPC No. 1556/2026 contained no observation on the merits; it only directed compliance with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur's order dated 23.06.2025 in MJC No. 1012/2025 passed under Section 14 of the Act 2002. ¶35

M/S Nanak Traders Vs Axis Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:22018

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 470 of 2026

¶6

1 - M/s Nanak Traders Through Its Proprietor, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Raipur, Near City Centre Mali, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN

¶8

2 - Shri Nanak Ram Tanwani S/o Late Shri Jairam Das Tanwani Aged About 63 Years, R/o 707/708, Khushi Vihar, Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006

¶9

3 - Shri Nikhil Tanwani S/o Shri Nanak Ram Tanwani Aged About 34 Years 707/708, Khushi Vihar Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006

¶10

4 - Shri Santosh Kumar Tanwani S/o. Late Shri Jairam Das Tanwani Aged About 62 Years 707/708, Khushi Vihar, Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006

¶11

5 - Smt. Meena Tanwani W/o Shri Nanak Ram Tanwani Aged About 60 Years 707/708, Khushi Vihar, Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Axis Bank Ltd. Through Its Authorized Officer, Mr. Shivanshu Pandey Having Its Branch Office At Rac, Pandri Branch, Near Shree Shivam, Jeewan Beema Marg, Raipur (C.G.) 492001

¶15

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tehsildar, Raipur Mantralaya Complex, Byron Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)-492002

¶16

3 - District Magistrate Raipur, Collectorate, Kutchary Chowk, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 492001

¶17

¶18

4 - SDM Raipur Mantralaya Complex, Byron Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 492002

¶19

5- Mal Jamadar, Raipur Mantralaya Complex, Byron Bazar, District Raipur (CG) 492002

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶22

For Applicants	:	Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
For Res No.1	:	Mr. Rajvansh singh, Advocate.
For Res No. 2 to 5	:	Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. GA.

¶23

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

11/05/2026

Heard on admission.

This applicant has filed this MCC seeking modification of order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.1556 of 2026 and seeking following relief:-

¶28

"i) modify the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.1556 of 2026 to the limited extent of directing that same shall not be executed for a period of ninety days from the date of this order, and that no coercive action whatsoever shall be taken against the applicants/respondents No. 5 to 9 in furtherance of the said order during the said period of ninety days."

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, by the impugned order dated 17.04.2026, this Court has directed to handover the possession of the secured property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth " Act 2002 ") to the financial creditor/respondent No. 1. He further submits that the secured property is a dwelling house and, in compliance with the order of this Court on 17.04.2026, respondents will take over possession of the

¶30

¶31

subject property tomorrow itself. He submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit the outstanding dues against his account. Therefore, the case may be admitted for hearing and relief as prayed for may be granted.

¶32

In reply, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that applicants/borrower have already filed an appeal before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 396/2025. He further submits that the learned DRT Jabalpur has already provided three opportunities to deposit the outstanding dues in four installments, despite that, the applicants have not deposited a single penny. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected.

¶33

Learned State counsel submits that the State Authorities will comply with the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in MJC No. 1012/2025, which has been directed to be complied with by this Court in WPC No. 1556/2026.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the application.

¶35

By the order dated 17.04.2026 in WPC No.1556/2026, this Court has not observed anything with regard to the merits of the case, rather, a direction has been made only to comply with the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in MJC No.1012/2025, which was passed under Section 14 of the Act 2002.

¶36

From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that recourse has already been taken by the applicants/borrower before the DRT Jabalpur, whereby some opportunities and relief have also been granted to the applicant, despite that, the applicants/borrower has not availed of the opportunities granted by the DRT Jabalpur.

¶37

¶38