Allowed¶38

M/S. Mahamaya Vaccine v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jan 2026REVP/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review/recall of writ order for non-disclosure of pending SARFAESI appeal; suppression of material facts by Bank; parallel proceedings before DRT and High Court not maintainable; direction under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 (60-day compliance of order dated 23.01.2025) withdrawn by recall of order dated 24.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025; Second Appeal No.204/2025, DRT Jabalpur, Section 17 SARFAESI Act; Bank of India v. State of Chhattisgarh; Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur; Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; 28.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 stands recalled. ¶38

M/S. Mahamaya Vaccine Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition allowed; the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 stands recalled.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025, directing respondents No.2 to 5 to comply with the order dated 23.01.2025 and conclude proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, should be reviewed/recalled in view of the undisclosed pendency of the statutory appeal (Second Appeal No.204/2025) before the DRT, Jabalpur against the foundational order dated 23.01.2025.

¶30

Court's answer

Material facts were not placed before this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition on 24.09.2025: the respondent/Bank suppressed the fact that the order dated 23.01.2025 had already been challenged before the DRT, Jabalpur under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the appeal was still pending.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above circumstances the Court considered it appropriate to review and recall the order dated 24.09.2025; the present review petition is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 stands recalled.

¶38

Key takeaways

Two parallel proceedings, one before the DRT and the second before this Court, are not maintainable.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), REVP No. 26 of 2026, decided 28.01.2026 before Arvind Kumar Verma, J.: The petitioners sought review/recall of the order dated 24.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 (Bank of India versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), whereby respondents No.2 to 5 were directed to comply with an order dated 23.01.2025 and to conclude proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, preferably within 60 days. The petitioners had already challenged the order dated 23.01.2025 before the DRT, Jabalpur under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act (Second Appeal No.204/2025, still pending), a fact not disclosed when the writ petition was heard on 24.09.2025. Holding that material facts were suppressed and not placed before the Court, and observing that two parallel proceedings -- one before the DRT and one before the High Court -- are not maintainable, the Court allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 24.09.2025.

2026:CGHC:4809

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

REVP No. 26 of 2026

¶6

1 - M/s. Mahamaya Vaccine Through Proprietor, Phanindra Mishra, S/o Late Mool Chand Mishra, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G.

¶7

2 - Jyoti Mishra W/o Phanindra Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur C.G.

¶8

3 - Syama Devi Mishra W/o Late Mool Chand Mishra Aged About 85 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Upnagar, Diprapara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶12

2 - The Collector-Cum - District Magistrate Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur C.G.

¶13

3 - The Tehsildar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G.

¶14

4 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G.

¶15

5 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G.

¶16

6 - Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer, Shri Suraj Kumar, S/o Shri Kamlesh Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, Office At- Arb, Bank Of India, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishab

¶20

Gupta, Advocate.

¶21

For Respondent-State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. For Respondent/Bank : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Proposed Intervenor : Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

28.01.2026

¶25

1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking review/recall of the order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 (Bank of India versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors). Relevant portion of order Annexure P-1 reads as under:

¶26

“9. Considering facts of the case, above submission of counsel for the parties, particularly the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the period prescribed therein, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 to 5 to comply with the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) and conclude the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 after giving proper opportunity of hearing to respondents No.6 to 8, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that order dated

¶28

23.01.2025 has already challenged by the petitioners herein (respondent Nos.6 to 7 in writ petition) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in

¶29

¶30

Second Appeal No.204/2025 (Annexure P-2) and appeal is still pending for consideration. Pendency of such appeal/proceeding was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of writ petition (WPC No.5041/2025) by the counsel for the Bank on 24.09.2025, resulting direction for execution have been issued even though foundational order is under statutory challenge. Hence, it is prayed that order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 be reviewed/recalled.

¶31

3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6/Bank submitted that pendency of said appeal/proceeding was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition on 24.09.2025, as the same had not been disclosed to him by his client-Bank. He further pointed out that he has drafted and filed the writ petition as per the instruction of his client/bank.

¶32

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 5041/2025) including the order dated 24.09.2025.

¶33

5. On perusal of writ petition and order dated 24.09.2025, it reveals that respondent/Bank has suppressed the fact that order dated 23.01.2025 has already challenged by the petitioners herein before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the matter/second appeal is still pending before DRT. Without disclosing the said fact, writ petitioner (respondent No.6/Bank herein) has filed the writ petition before this Court and also obtained the above direction/order by

¶34

¶35

this Court on 24.09.2025. Thus, it is evident that material facts were not placed before this Court at the time of hearing of writ petition on 24.09.2025. However, counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that writ petition was drafted and filed on the basis of instructions received from his client/Bank.

¶36

6. It is pertinent to mention herein that two parallel proceedings, one before the DRT and second before this Court is not maintainable.

¶37

7. In view of above circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to review and recall the order dated 24.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5041/2025.

¶38

8. Consequently, the present review petition is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5041/2025 stands recalled.

¶39

CC as per rules.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶42

J/-

M/S. Mahamaya Vaccine v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mahamaya Vaccine 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

Manish Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwarilal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhojram Nishad @ Raj Babu @ Pokha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shok Haran Lavkesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pardeshi Das Mahant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh