Disposed¶44

Bank of Baroda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2026WPC/3646/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002 Section 14 order implementation; Tahsildar inaction on representations; writ direction to decide pending proceedings within 45 days; NPA classification; Section 13(2) demand notice; possession of secured asset; Bank of Baroda v. State of Chhattisgarh; WPC No. 3646 of 2026; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; time-bound mandamus to revenue authorities; merits left undecided; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the pending proceedings/representation of the petitioner Bank and take consequential steps in accordance with law within 45 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order, subject to there being no hindrance and no order of stay by any higher authority or competent Court; no order as to costs. ¶44

Bank of Baroda Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the concerned Tahsildar should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner Bank's pending representation/proceedings for implementation of the District Magistrate's order dated 01.07.2024 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and take consequential steps to deliver possession of the secured asset within a stipulated period.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the pending proceedings/representation of the petitioner and take consequential steps.

¶38

Key takeaways

The Tahsildar was to act in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, provided there is no hindrance in deciding the application and no order of stay by any higher authority or competent Court.ratio¶40
The Court made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 3646 of 2026), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., order dated 14/07/2026. Bank of Baroda, having classified its borrowers' loan account as an NPA and proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — demand notice under Section 13(2), possession notice, and an order dated 01.07.2024 of the District Magistrate under Section 14 — complained that the Tahsildar had taken no consequential steps on its representations for handing over possession of the secured asset. State counsel raised no objection to a time-bound direction. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the pending proceedings/representation and take consequential steps in accordance with law within 45 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order, provided there is no hindrance and no stay by any higher authority or competent Court. The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits. No order as to costs.

CGHC010267772026

2026:CGHC:29570

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3646 of 2026

¶7

AVINASH SHARMA

¶8

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.15 19:08:18 +0530

¶9

1 - Bank Of Baroda Through Authorised Officer, Shri Prahlad Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Deo Chandra Jha, Aged About 44 Years, Regional Office At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - District Magistrate-Cum-Collector Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District SarangarhBilaigarh Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Tehsildar, Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - M/s Kailash Cycle And Electricals Stores Through Proprietor Shri Kailash Kumar Khute, S/o Jaggulal Khute, Office At In Front Of Maha Rana Pratap Garden, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Saket Pandey, Advocate.
For State	: Shri Amit Nayak, PL.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

14/07/2026

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶22

“10.1. That, the records pertaining to the

¶23

revenue case of the petitioner, may be kindly

¶24

called for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

¶26

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authority to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶27

10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble

¶28

court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶29

Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is a Bank which had extended financial assistance to the borrowers in the ordinary course of its banking business. According to the petitioner, the borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan amount and consequently the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the applicable banking norms. It has been stated that the borrowers had mortgaged and secured their immovable property in favour of the petitioner Bank as security against the loan amount. After declaration of the loan account as NPA, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act of 2002”). A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued to the borrowers calling upon them to repay the outstanding dues within the prescribed period. Despite issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, the borrowers failed to liquidate the outstanding liability. Thereafter, possession notice was also issued by the petitioner Bank. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Bank thereafter preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the District Magistrate seeking assistance for taking possession of the secured asset. The District Magistrate passed an order

¶30

¶31

dated 01.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner Bank. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner Bank submitted representations before the concerned Tahsildar requesting implementation of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and for handing over possession of the secured property. However, despite submission of such representations, no effective action has been taken by the Tahsildar till date. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Bank has already completed all statutory formalities contemplated under the Act of 2002. It is contended that after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice, the petitioner preferred proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the District Magistrate has already passed an order dated 01.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner Bank. Learned counsel submits that despite passing of the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the authorities concerned, particularly the Tahsildar, have failed to take consequential steps for providing possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank. It is further argued that the proceedings under Section 14 are intended to facilitate expeditious enforcement of security interest and recovery of public money and, therefore, the authorities cannot keep such proceedings pending indefinitely without any justifiable reason. Learned counsel also submits that several representations have already been submitted before the Tahsildar, however, no action has yet been taken. Due to such inaction, the petitioner Bank is facing serious difficulty in recovery of public dues. It is therefore prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the

¶33

¶34

concerned Tahsildar to conclude the proceedings and act upon the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within a stipulated period.

¶35

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 has already been passed by the District Magistrate and the matter is required to be processed by the concerned revenue authorities in accordance with law. It is further submitted that if this Court directs the Tahsildar concerned to consider and decide the pending representation/proceedings within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

From the pleadings and documents filed by the petitioner, it appears that after declaration of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and subsequently obtained an order dated 01.07.2024 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 from the District Magistrate concerned. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite passing of the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and despite submission of representations before the Tahsildar, no consequential action has been taken for providing possession of the secured asset.

¶38

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the pending proceedings/representation of the petitioner and take consequential steps in

¶39

¶40

accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if there is no hindrance in deciding the same application or if there is no order of stay passed by any higher authority or

¶41

competent Court.

¶42

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned shall proceed strictly in accordance

¶43

with law.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

No order as to costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶48

Avinash

Bank of Baroda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda 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

Badkadau Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramcharan Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tekram Mande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandradeep Kumar Vaishya, Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Vs State of Chhattisgarh