Disposed¶22

Arefun Nisha v. the Authorised Officer, Icici Bank Ltd., Kolkata

Orissa HC14 Jul 2025WP(C)/17881/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI writ petition disposed of on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy; challenge to possession notice dated 09.10.2024 under section 13(4) SARFAESI Act by Authorized Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd.; borrower's right of redemption under section 13(8) extinguished on publication of Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules auction notice (as per Celir LLP); High Court interference deprecated (South Indian Bank); liberty to file appeal; no adjudication on merits. Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Bench: S.K. Sahoo and S.S. Mishra, JJ.; Order dated 14.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the appropriate authority; such appeal to be considered in accordance with law; urgent certified copy as per Rules. ¶22

Arefun Nisha Vs the Authorised Officer, Icici Bank Ltd… — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17881 of 2025

¶2

Arefun Nisha and another …. Petitioners

¶3

Mr.P.K.Jena, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

The Authorized Officer, …. Opp. Parties ICICI Bank Ltd., Kolkata and another

CORAM:

Order No.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA ORDER 14.07.2025

¶10

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the possession notice dated 09.10.2024 issued by opposite party no.1 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act vide Annexure-4.

¶12

In the case of Celir LLP -Vrs.- Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd. reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 , it has been held as follows:

¶13

“110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the borrower's

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the auction-sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour of the auctionpurchaser, by registration of the sale certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auctionpurchaser.

¶16

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. -Vrs.- Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 has deprecated the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, where efficacious alternative remedy has been

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

prescribed in the statute itself. The Hon’ble Court went on to hold as follows:

¶19

“16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative.”

¶20

In view of the settled position of law as held hereinabove so also in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 782 , since alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶24

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶25

Judge

¶26

(S.S. Mishra) Judge