M/S Choudhury Enterprise and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010262972025

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6879/2025

¶6

M/S CHOUDHURY ENTERPRISE AND ANR

¶7

PROPRIETORIAL FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR IMRAN SHA CHOUDHURY, HOUSE NO. 7, PANKAJ NAGAR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY JOINING ROAD, BHETAPARA, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781029

¶8

2: IMRAN SHA CHOUDHURY SON OF HARMUZ ALI CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.5 SEUJ SARANI PATH BYE LANE NO. 10 LAKHIMI NAGAR KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM- 78100

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

¶11

DEPARTMENT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI 110001

¶12

2:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 7 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI AND HAVING AMONGST OTHER ONE BRANCH OFFICE AT FANCY BAZAR LIC BUILDING S.S. ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶13

3:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BRANCH OFFICE AT FANCY BAZAR LIC BUILDING S.S. ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGE

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S YASMIN, MR P R SARMA,MR. K N CHOUDHURY,MR H K SARMA,MR. M SHARMA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

04.12.2025

(M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶23

The petitioners have put to challenge the vacation notice dated 11.06.2024 issued by the Punjab National Bank (PNB), informing them that they need to deliver possession of the secured asset which the petitioners had submitted as security/mortgage for the loan taken by them from the PNB, inasmuch as, the said land had been sold by auction and sale certificate issued on 29.12.2023. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in I.A. No.418/2024 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, in

¶24

Page No.# 3/7

¶25

Misc. Appeal No.72/2025.

¶26

The petitioners’ counsel submits that the vacation notice dated 11.06.2024 had been challenged by way of SA No.71/2024 along with I.A. No.418/2024, for stay of the vacation notice before the DRT, Guwahati. I.A. No.418/2024 was however dismissed as not being maintainable by the DRT, Guwahati.

¶27

The dismissal of I.A. No.418/2024 was put to challenge by the petitioners before the DRAT, Kolkata. However, the same was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2025 by the Appellate Tribunal, on the ground that the same was barred by the principles of res-judicata, in view of the issues being raised in Misc. Appeal No.72/2025 having already been decided by the DRT, Guwahati, by dismissal of SA No.93/2022.

¶28

The facts of the case in brief is that due to the petitioners not re-paying their loan amount taken from PNB, PNB had issued notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the petitioners. The petitioners put the same to challenge vide SA No.93/2022 before the DRT, Guwahati along with I.A. No.581/2021. The petitioners in SA No.93/2022 had challenged the notices dated 16.07.2019, 20.11.2019 and possession notice dated 14.09.2021. SA No.93/2022 was dismissed by the DRT, Guwahati on 19.10.2023. The petitioners thereafter filed Review Application No.10/2023 against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in SA No.93/2022. The Review Application No.10/2023 is still pending before the DRT, Guwahati.

¶29

The petitioners’ property which had been put as security/mortgage for the

¶30

Page No.# 4/7

¶31

loan, had been sold, by way of an auction and sale certificate in respect of the same was issued to the buyer on 29.12.2023. The impugned vacation notice dated 11.06.2024 issued by the PNB was thereafter put to challenge by the petitioners, vide SA No.71/2024 before the DRT, Guwahati, along with I.A. No.418/2024, wherein the petitioners prayed for stay of the vacation notice dated 11.06.2024.

¶32

I.A. No.418/2024 was dismissed as not maintainable. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of I.A. No.418/2024, the same had been put to challenge in Misc. Appeal No.72/2025, which was dismissed by the DRAT, Kolkata, vide judgment dated 07.11.2025, on the ground that the same was barred by the principles of res-judicata. The dismissal of Misc. Appeal No.72/2025 by the DRAT, Kolkata has been put to challenge in this writ petition.

¶33

We have noticed that in Misc. Appeal No.72/2025, the petitioners have not put to challenge the order of the DRT, Guwahati dated 19.10.2023 dismissing SA No.93/2022. Further, no stay order has been issued in the pending Review Application No.10/2023, pending in the DRT, Guwahati. As such, there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned DRAT, Kolkata in Misc. Appeal No.72/2025, as the order dated 19.10.2023 dismissing SA No.93/2022 has attained finality as on date, until and unless the review application gives an order to the contrary.

¶34

We have also seen the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the DRT, Guwahati in SA No.71/2024, wherein it has been stated as follows :

¶35

“The applicant had exhausted all his remedies so far sale of his property under

¶36

Page No.# 5/7

¶37

auction sale is concerned and this Tribunal had decided the validity of the said actions by the respondent bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in favour of respondent bank vide its order dated 19.10.2023 and the said order has attained finality. Once the order dated 19.10.2023 had attained finality, the question of redemption cannot be hurtled back for fresh adjudication when the same had already been decided and adjudicated by this Tribunal. There is no illegality has been committed by the respondent bank while Issuing the impugned notice 11.06.2024 for handing over the physical possession of the auctioned property to the successful auction purchaser with the assistance of the District Authority in terms of the DM order dated 19.02.2024 as a consequence to the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in SA No. 93/2022, culminating in the issuance of sale certificate dated 29.12.2023. It is therefore obvious that the said impugned notice dated 11.06.2024 is not a vacation notice per se but a notice enforcing the legal right of the successful auction purchaser and the legitimate owner of the auction property to get physical possession over the same. The applicant has failed to establish any case that call for the intervention of this Tribunal. Sale certificate had already been issued and the auction sale proceeds had been adjusted in the loan account. The applicant failed to prove any prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the respondent bank as the public money stood recovered.”

¶38

The above observation had been made in I.A. 418/2024 arising out of SA No.71/2024.

¶39

We have also noticed that when the bank had taken possession of the secured properties under Section 13(4) read with Rule 8 of the SARFAESI Act, sale notice of the security had been issued on 08.07.2021. The petitioners had approached this Court, vide WP(C) No.3692/2021. This Court had thereafter directed the petitioner no.2 to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) with the respondent bank. However, the petitioner no.2 did not deposit the Rupees ten lakhs. This Court, in it’s order dated 16.08.2021 passed in

¶40

Page No.# 6/7

¶41

WP(C) No.3692/2021, had also observed that in the meantime auction had already taken place and that the highest offer of Rs.89,00,000/- (Rupees eighty nine lakhs) had been received by the bank. However, due to the interim order dated 12.08.2021 passed in WP(C) No.3692/2021, the auction had not been finalised. This Court in it’s order dated 16.08.2021 passed in WP(C) No.3692/2021 thereafter held that in the above circumstances, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the matter. The writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.3692/2021 filed by the petitioner no.2, was accordingly dismissed. The above being said, the petitioner no.2 is also an accused in a criminal case arising out of Paltanbazar P.S. Case No.3298/2021. The petitioner is also an accused in Dispur P.S. Case No.869/2021 under Section 420/468 of IPC. The petitioner no.2 was also granted bail in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.869/2021, vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in Bail Application No.3024/2021. As per the allegation of the Chief General Manager, APDCL, the accused had been arrested on the allegation of forging the signature of the Chief Minister of Assam.

¶42

Further, the vacation notice dated 11.06.2024 is only a consequential order arising out of the notices dated 16.07.2019, 20.11.2019, 14.09.2021, the auction sale of the secured asset and the sale certificate dated 29.12.2023. Thus, unless the initial orders which have not been disturbed, are set aside, there can be no challenge to the consequential orders. On considering the fact that the challenge to the auction of the security/secured asset by the petitioners has been dismissed by the DRT, Guwahati and this Court in SA No.93/2022 and WP(C) No.3692/2021 respectively, which has not been stayed or set aside in any forum, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned decision of the DRT,

¶43

Page No.# 7/7

¶44

Guwahati in I.A No.418/2024 and the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the DRAT, Kolkata in Misc. Appeal No.72/2025.

¶45

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

M/S Choudhury Enterprise and Anr. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Choudhury Enterprise and Anr. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aijul Ali @ Aijul Rahman @ Kalia Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Biki Thapa Vs the State of Assam

Assam Andolon Sangrami Mancha Vs the Union of India and 13 Ors.

Pashan Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sanjib Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Taijuddin Bhuyan, Vs the State of Assam and Anr.