Dismissed

Sadhu Sharan v. General Manager, State Bank Of India and Ors.

Patna HC13 Aug 2025CWJC/22313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents and remitted the petitioner to proceed in the appropriate statutory forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach appropriate forum under SARFAESI Act.

Sadhu Sharan Vs General Manager, State Bank Of India and… — Banking and Recovery | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22313 of 2018

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Sadhu Sharan Son of Late Bishundhari Rai Resident of Village-Katchi Dargah,P.S. Nadi Fatuha,Patna City,Distt.-Patna

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

General Manager, State Bank Of India

¶7

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India,Gandhi Maidan S.M.E. Centre Branch,Ist Floor,Patna M

¶8

Chief Branch Manager,S.B.I. Lal Fatak,Marufganj Branch,Patna City,P,O. Marufganj,Distt.-Patna

¶9

Branch Manager,S.B.I. Lal Fatak,Marufganj Branch,Patna City,P,O. Marufganj,Distt.-Patna

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudal Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 13-08-2025

¶18

1 . The Writ petition is filed for the following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

(i) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of installment of 60 months to the petitioner from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 from the SBI, Marufganj Branch to OD A/C No. 61131894448, M/s Neelima Foods, Prop. Sadhu Sharan, S/o Late Vishundhari Rai, Resident of Jethuli, Kachi Dargah,

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.22313 of 2018 dt.13-08-2025 2/4

¶22

Patna City, Patna-803201.

¶23

(ii) Also to direct the Respondents to consider their notice because the amount is heavy i.e. 11,19,702/-

¶24

(iii). Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law.

¶25

2 . Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

3 . The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , held as follows:

¶27

The High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.22313 of 2018 dt.13-08-2025 3/4

¶29

institutions. While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

¶30

4 . In case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors

¶31

(Mumbai) (P) Ltd. , reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-

¶32

97. This court has time and again, reminded the high courts that they should not entertain petition

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.22313 of 2018 dt.13-08-2025 4/4

¶34

under article 226 of the constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT.

¶35

5 . In case of PHR Invent Educational

¶36

Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024 Insc 297 , the same principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶37

6 . Therefore, this Court is of the considerable view that the Writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative and effective remedy is available to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing his remedy, and the concerned authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation.

¶38

7 . With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶40

Manish/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	20.08.2025
Transmission Date

Sadhu Sharan v. General Manager, State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Sharan v. General Manager, State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishekha Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anupama Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kaimuranchal Vikash Samiti Through Secretary Arun Kumar Upadhayaya Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Dubey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Hi Tech Concretes Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nutan Kishlay Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.