The court emphasized the mandatory timeline for deciding applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to facilitate timely recovery of secured assets, indicating any undue delay undermines the objective of the statute.

JUDGMENT :

SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Sharma, Sri Nitesh Kumar Jauhari and Sri Ajeet Singh learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of the present batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned Magistrates to decide the applications filed by them under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter “SARFAESI Act, 2002”) expeditiously, within a time-frame for ensuring the physical possession of the property to petitioners.

3. The petitioner is same in all petitions, which is a registered housing finance company and a notified financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitions challenge administrative delays in the exercise of statutory duties by the concerned Magistrates, which, according to the petitioner, amount to a violation of the mandatory timelines prescribed under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and also directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions in order to ensure the timeline.

4. All the writ petitions in this batch raise a common question of law under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, they are, therefore, being heard together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the factual background of each petition is set out separately, and references to pleadings and documents are confined to the respective petitions unless otherwise indicated.

5. In each case, the borrowers availed loans from the petitioner, creating an equitable mortgage over the respective properties. Following defaults in repayment, the loan accounts were declared Non-Performing Assets. In accordance with the statutory procedure, demand notices under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were issued. As debts remained unpaid, the petitioner took symbolic possession of the assets under (4). Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the competent court to obtain actual physical possession of the secured assets. The grievance in all the petitions is that the applications have not been decided within the statutory period, and the authorities concerned have allegedly been mechanically fixing dates without passing substantive orders.

Writ C No. 42608 of 2025

6. Factual background in Writ C No. 42608 of 2025 is that the borrower availed a housing loan of Rs.10,01,000/- on 13.02.2024, creating an equitable mortgage over scheduled property. Following a default in repayment, the loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset on 06.05.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the statutory procedure, a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the petitioner for the amount of Rs. 10,27,581/- due as on 20.02.2025. He further submits that neither any objection was filed nor the debt was paid, and ther