Central Bank Of India vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Central Bank Of India vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2025

                                1




                                                2025:CGHC:28362



                                                                 NAFR
    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                       WPC No. 3255 of 2025

Central Bank Of India Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch
Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
                                            ... Petitioner(s)

                                versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The District Collector And District Magistrate Ambikapur District
Sarguja (C.G.)

3 - Superintendent Of Police Sarguja, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

4 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarguja District Sarguja Chhattisgarh

5 - Tahsildar Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

6 - M/s Om Jewelers Through Its Proprietor Rajesh Soni, S/o
Vishwanath Soni R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur,
District Sarguja (C.G.)

                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner              :   Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate
For State                   :   Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL
                                           2




               Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

                                    Order on Board
27/06/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the following

relief(s) :

“i. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

pass any appropriate writ, order or direction upon

the respondent authorities to comply with the order

dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Respondent No.02

in case no. 24/B-121/2023-24 and assist the

Petitioner Bank in obtaining the physical possession

of the secured assets as stated in the order dated

25.07.2024 in a time bound manner, in the interest

of justice.

ii. To kindly make any other order or writ that may

be deemed fit and just in the facts and

circumstances of the case including awarding of the

costs to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned

District Magistrate / Respondent No.02 vide order dated 25.07.2024

has allowed the application under Section 14 filed by the Petitioner

Bank and thereby ordered to grant the possession of the secured

assets to the Petitioner Bank but till date the Petitioner Bank has not
3

been given the possession of the secured assets. The learned District

Magistrate / Respondent No.02 while allowing the application of

the petitioner, directed the private respondent to hand over the

vacant possession of the assets within period of 1 month, failing

which the Petitioner Bank will be provided with the assistance of

the Police for securing possession of the assets but till date no

assistance has been provided to the Petitioner Bank to secure the

possession of the secured assets. He further submits that the

Petitioner Bank has also addressed letter on 14.11.2024 to the

learned District Magistrate / Respondent No.02 for execution of the

order dated 25.07.2024, but the Respondent Authority did not show

any response in providing the possession of the secured assets to the

petitioner. Despite of the clear and unambiguous direction passed

by the Respondent No.02, the concerned Tahsildar and Sub

Divisional Magistrate has neither issued the possession warrant or

taken any step to comply with the order dated 25.07.2024 and has

also failed to forward the said order for necessary execution. The

physical possession of the secured assets/propriety is required to be

taken by the secured creditor/petitioner since the said secured assets

is to be sold by the petitioner under the provision of SARFAESI Act

2002 for realization of outstanding dues of the petitioner. He

further submits that the money involved in instant case constitutes

public money, and its realization is essential in the larger public
4

interest and for maintaining the financial discipline of lending

institutions. The SARFAESI Act, 2002, is a legislation intended to

empower secured creditors with expeditious enforcement measures,

including the non-judicial recovery of secured assets under Section

13(4), and assistance from the District Magistrate under Section 14.

But in the instant case despite of order dated 25.07.2024, the

Respondent Authorities have failed to provide the possession of the

secured assets till date. The powers under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act, 2002 are specifically designed to ensure timely

delivery of possession to the secured creditor once due compliance

under the Act has been shown. However, in the present case despite

of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 25.07.2024, till date

possession of the secured asset has not been handed over to the

Petitioner Bank. The learned DRT, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 817/2024

has directed that Respondent No. 06 will pay amount of Rs.

15,00,000/- as partial payment towards its loan in 4 installments till

23.12.2024 and it was specifically and categorically directed that if

the Respondent No. 06 deposits the amount 15,00,000/- in the

prescribed manner then the execution of the order dated 25.07.2024

will remain stayed but if the Respondent No. 06 fails to deposit the

said amount in the prescribed manner, then petitioner bank will be

at the liberty to file for execution of the order dated 25.07.2024
5

passed by the Respondent No. 02/ District Magistrate, but the

Respondent No. 06 failed to deposit the amount as directed by the

learned DRT, Jabalpur, therefore there is no interim relief in favour

of the Respondent No. 06. This Court in the similar set of facts and

circumstance in the matter bearing no. W.P.(C) No. 3124/2024

parties as ‘Bank of Baroda Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors’

vide order dated 26.06.2024 was pleased to dispose of the said writ

petition without issuing notice to other private respondents,

directing the Tahsildar to conclude the proceedings arising out of

order passed under section 14 of the Act, 2002, at the earliest

preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the order

in accordance with law.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

with utmost circumspection.

5. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the

respective parties and relief sought in the writ petition, i.e., only for

execution of order dated 25.07.2024 passed by respondent No.2

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in case No.24/B-121/2023-

24. This Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition

stands disposed of without issuance of notice to other private
6

respondents directing to respondent No.2 to conclude the

proceeding arising out of order dated 25.07.2024 at the earliest

preferably within a period of ’60 days’ from the date of receipt of

copy of this order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law.

6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge

Vasant