M/S Rajhans Transport through Its Proprietor Vidyapati Singh Vs the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Finance

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:3665-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 294 of 2025

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. No. 2200 of 2025

¶5

M/s Rajhans Transport Warehousing Company Private Limited through its Director Rajesh Kumar Singh (Male) aged about 58 years son of Sri Nagina Singh having its registered Office at Flat No.801, Gharounda Complex (Near Jagdeo Path More), Bailey Road, Khazpura, P.O. & P.S.-Shashtrinagar, District-Patna-800014 (Bihar), at present Dwarka Apartment, Dutta Villa Kok-2, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District Ranchi-834008 (Jharkhand).

¶6

…… Appellant

¶7

With

¶8

L.P.A. No. 295 of 2025 With

¶9

I.A. No. 2199 of 2025

¶10

M/s Rajhans Transport Warehousing Company Private Limited through its Director Rajesh Kumar Singh (Male) aged about 58 years son of Sri Nagina Singh having its registered Office at Flat No.801, Gharounda Complex (Near Jagdeo Path More), Bailey Road, Khazpura, P.O. & P.S.-Shashtrinagar, District-Patna-800014 (Bihar), at present Dwarka Apartment, Dutta Villa Kok-2, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District Ranchi-834008 (Jharkhand).

¶11

…… Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Finance, having Office at North Block, Post Office and Police Station-Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Pin-110004.

¶14

Reserve Bank of India through the Secretary, Reserve Bank of India, 16^th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, P.O.- GPO, Mumbai, P.S.Mumbai Central Police Chowky, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

¶15

Managing Director, HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, P.O./P.S.-Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013.

¶16

Chief Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, 463/1 Ashok Nagar, P.O./P.S.-Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, (Jharkhand). ....... Respondents (in both appeals)

¶17

¶18

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶19

¶20

For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Ms. Nitu Sinha, CGC For the Respondent No.2 : M/s Pandey Neeraj Rai, Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Arpit Khandelwal, Kumar Rahul & Harshit Ranjan Prasad, Advocates

¶21

Order No. 03 Dated : 11.02.2026

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel agrees that the facts in both these matters are similar and, therefore, both these matters should be disposed of by a common order.

¶24

1

¶25

Vide two interim applications, delay of 89 days in instituting these appeals is sought to be condoned.

¶26

We have examined the reasons for the delay and though, they are not very satisfactory, considering the length of the delay, coupled with the circumstances, in which the said delay has been occasioned, we condone the delay and dispose of both the interim applications.

¶27

Upon condonation of the delay, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of these appeals. However, upon hearing them and considering the records, we are satisfied that no case has been made to admit these appeals.

¶28

In these cases, the appellants’ trucks have been attached and sold for nonpayment of dues to the Bank. The entire transaction was under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶29

The SARFAESI Act provides for a remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that such statutory alternate remedies should not be allowed to be easily bye-passed or writ petition be entertained despite the availability of such alternate statutory remedies.

¶30

The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and correctly concluded that the issues raised by the appellants could be best adjudicated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not before the Writ Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants want some reasonable time for clearing the dues, even though, they have other several contentions to question the action of the Bank. All such offers for payment

¶32

2

¶33

or challenges to the Bank’s action can be questioned before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Writ Court generally does not entertain such matters, given the statutory regime of the SARFAESI Act.

¶34

Therefore, we find no error in the learned Single Judge’s order, dismissing the appellants’ petition on the ground of availability of alternate and efficacious statutory remedies.

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants will approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within six weeks from today. If the appellants, indeed, approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within six weeks from today, then, we request the Debt Recovery Tribunal to show some consideration to the appellants in the context of bar of limitation, by at least taking into account the times spent by the appellants pursuing their writ petitions and these appeals. This Court has not examined any of the rival contentions on merits and therefore, all contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter are kept open to be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, should the appellants indeed file proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and overcome the bar of limitation.

¶36

These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with liberty in the above terms. No costs.

¶37

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

¶39

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶40

February 11, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. N.A.F.R. / uploaded on 12.02.2026

¶41

3

M/S Rajhans Transport through Its Proprietor Vidyapati Singh v. the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rajhans Transport through Its Proprietor Vidyapati Singh v. the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Finance

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

Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director, Vs Shakuntala Sharma

Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Vs Mr. Naresh Kumar Tyagi

Assistant General Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, (Cppc), State Bank of India Vs Bindeshwar Prasad Paswan

M/S Szk Logistics, Thro Its Proprietor, Namely, Ramiz Alam Khan Vs Union of India, through the Principal Commissioner

V.R. Minerals, through Its Partner Paresh Ghosal Vs Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, through Its Principal Commissioner

The State of Jharkhand Vs Jitendra Dubey