Jagdish Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4119 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Jagdish Thakur Son of Late Saryug Thakur Resident of VillageBalbhadrapur Khajuri, W.No.2, P.S.-Kalyanpur, Anchal-Kalyanpur, DistrictSamastipur.

¶4

Sanjay Kumar Thakur Sanjay Kumar Thakur Village Balbhadrapur Khajuri, W.No.2, P.S.-Kalyanpur, Anchal-Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur

¶5

Sanjay Kumar Thakur Son of Jagdish Thakur Resident of VillageBalbhadrapur Khajuri, W.No.2, P.S.-Kalyanpur, Anchal-Kalyanpur, DistrictSamastipur.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

The District Magistrate, Samastipur

¶10

District Certificate Officer, Samastipur,(District-Samastipur)

¶11

Authorised Officer, Canara Bank cum Regional Manager, Muzaffarpur Dumari Road Chawk, Gobar Sahi, District-Muzaffarpur.

¶12

Branch Manager, Canara Bank Muktapur, Near Bazar Samiti, Muktapur, Near Petrol Pump, Samastipur, P.S.-Mathurapur, District-Samastipur

¶13

The Superintendent of Police Samastipur

¶14

Raghvendra Thakur Resident of Village-Balbhadrapur Khajuri, W.No.2, P.S.-Kalyanpur, Anchal-Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur

¶15

.. ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niraj Lochan Jha, Adv. : Mr. Madhav Krishna, Adv. For Bank : Mr. Manish Kishore, Adv. For Auction Purchaser : Mr. Kumar Praveen, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (04) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

6 22-09-2025 The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Celir LLP v.

¶19

Bafna Motors(Mumbai) (P) Ltd. (2024) 2 SCC 1 has held as

¶20

under;

¶21

“105. We summarise our final conclusion as under:

¶22

(i) The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.4119 of 2025(6) dt.22-09-2025 2/3

¶24

the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶25

(ii) The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI.

¶26

(iii) 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 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 auction purchaser, 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 Rules of 2002. 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 Rules of 2002 and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction purchaser.

¶27

(iv) The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower.

¶28

(v) The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have applied equitable considerations to overreach the

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.4119 of 2025(6) dt.22-09-2025 3/3

¶30

outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed under the SARFAESI Act.

¶31

(vi) The two decisions of the Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix (supra) and Amme Srisailam (supra) do not lay down the correct position of law. In the same way, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pal Alloys (supra) also does not lay down the correction position of law.

¶32

(vii) The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Sai Annadhatha Polymers (supra) and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta (supra) lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶33

2. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for redressal of his grievance, if any. The application of condonation of the delay shall be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law, if any, filed by the petitioners.

¶34

3. With the above direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶36

Ayush/-

¶37

U

Jagdish Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perfecto Electricals Vs General Manager, GMs Building

Satyendra Narayan Vs The State of Bihar

Awdhesh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Imran Akhtar Vs The Union of India

M/S Bihar State Handloom Handicrafts Corp. Ltd. Vs The Union of India

Alok Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar