The court affirmed that the respondent qualified as a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, rendering the recovery proceedings lawful and the writ petition non-maintainable due to available statutory remedies.

JUDGMENT :

SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Shri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner is challenging the initiation and continuation of recovery proceedings against the petitioner and has prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 13.11.2025 and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 under Chapter III of Act, 2002 regarding recovery of the loan.

3. The brief facts of the present case, as borne out from the pleadings on record, are that Petitioner No.1 had availed two separate loan facilities from Respondent No.4, namely Save Financial Services Private Limited, for the purposes of business expansion and meeting working capital requirements. The said facilities were sanctioned vide sanction letters dated 12.12.2018 and 21.12.2018 for amounts of Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 8,80,000/- respectively. In order to secure the aforesaid credit facilities, the petitioner have created a security interest over an immovable property bearing Municipal No. 25/269, situated at Bodh Vihar, Chakkipat, Chhipitola Road, Agra, by way of deposit of title deeds, including the original sale deed dated 14.01.1998.

4. The respondent-company issued computer-generated repayment schedules dated 30.07.2019 and 23.01.2020 specifying the disbursement details and the repayment structure, which was initially followed by the petitioner, however, defaults occurred in the loan accounts subsequently. Upon continued default, the loan accounts of the petitioner were classified as Non-Performing Assets (hereinafter referred as “NPA”).

5. After account of petitioner became NPA, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 issued notice dated 13.08.2025, followed by a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “SARFAESI Act”) on 13.11.2025, claiming an outstanding amount of Rs. 22,33,573.73/-. The said notice also stated that the respondent-company stood authorized as a financial institution pursuant to notification dated 12.02.2021 issued by the Central Government. After failure of the petitioner to comply with the demand notice, the respondents proceeded to issue possession notice dated 15.01.2026 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, thereby taking symbolic possession of the secured asset.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned proceedings primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was contended that Respondent No. 4 does not fall within the definition of a “Financial Institution” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It was argued that the government notification dated 12.02.2021, relied upon by the respondents, did not include or cover Save Financial Services Private Limited, and therefore the very initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was without authority of law. In support of the argument, reliance had also been placed upon earlier government notification dated 05.08.2016.

7. It was further submitted that the security interest created in favour of the respondent had not been registered with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI). Learned counsel drew attention to an online search result dated 26.01.2026 to contend that no such registration existed. It was thus argued that in view of the statutor