APHC010137762026

LISA GILL,J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Sec urity Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”), initiated by respondent No.1 against the petitioner.

It is pleaded that petitioner availed of loan facility from the respondent company vide account No.HE010BB00000027251 on 03.07.2022;security interest was created in favour of respondent No.1 accordingly. It is pleaded that number of installments were paid regularly by petitioner, however due to certain business exigencies and financial difficulties, petitioner could not discharge some installments on time, leading to his account being declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 09.04.2025. It is stated that this notice though served upon petitioner was not served upon all the borrowers in accordance with law.Possession notice was issued on 28.06.2025.

It is submitted that respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and notice dated 09.03.2026 has been issued, intimating that physical possession of scheduled property would be taken by 16.03.2026.

Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that entire proceedings under SARFAESI Act undertaken against the petitioner are illegal and arbitrary. Notice under Section 13(2) should have been served upon all borrowers. It is to be noted that it is not denied that said notice was duly served upon the present petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that publication of possession notice should have been carried out in a proper manner whereas it was not so done and publication was carried out in a newspaper titled Praja Shakti, which is not one of the leading papers and does not have adequate circulation in the District. Publication is infact made in another District, therefore, entire proceedings for taking over possession are vitiated. Petitioner should have been given a chance to redeem the loan amount before initiating the process of taking over possession. Petitioner had approached respondent No.1 for restructuring of the loan account or for a settlement i.e. a One Time Settlement (OTS) in terms of the policy followed by the respondent No.1 but it appears that respondent No.1 is hell-bent upon taking possession of the property in question. It is thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed, as prayed for.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the writ petition while submitting that apart from petitioner having an efficacious remedy which he has not availed, there is no merit in this writ petition. Dismissal thereof is sought.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file.

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such like circumstances has to be minimal and actuated only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. It has beenheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 as under:-

“18. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High co