GAHC010252432025

2025:GAU-

AS:17035-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6581/2025

VAISHNO DEVI TRADERS PVT LTD

REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED PERSON NAMELY YOUDHISHTRA BHAMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O BALWAN BHAMA, H. NO. 35,

BANGAON, NEAR INCOME TAX COLONY, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-781028

VERSUS

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, KAMRUP (M) AND 2 ORS. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, LICHUBAGAN,

HENGERABARI, GUWHAATI-781036, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

2:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

KAMRUP (M)

JALUKBARI CO-DISTRICT

DIST- KAMRUP (M)

GUWAHATI PIN-781012

3:AUTHORIZED OFFICER

CANARA BANK

ARM BRANCH

2ND FLOOR

CIRCLE OFFICE CANARA BANK

1ST DEE BEE GRAND

PANJABARI ROAD

SIX MILE

GUWHAATI-78100

For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Chamaria, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sarma, GA, Assam B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

10.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on being aggrieved with the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of not taking necessary action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking over the physical possession of the property mortgaged with the respondent No.3/Canara bank.

The petitioner is the auction purchaser of the property in question. In fact, the property in question was mortgaged to Canara Bank/respondent No. 3 to secure a cash credit loan by the borrower. The borrower defaulted in repaying the loan and resultantly the loan went bad and the bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Symbolic possession of the property in question was taken and the same was auctioned/sold to the petitioner, he being the highest bidder for the property. Sale confirmation was also issued by the bank in favour of the petitioner, but the property could not be handed over to the petitioner as no physical possession of the property had been taken by the bank.

In fact, the borrower and others had challenged the entire auction process before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, in which a stay order was passed, restraining the bank to enforce physical possession of the property before handing over to the petitioner. Ultimately, in September, 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the borrower, upholding the action of the bank under Section 13(2), 13(4) and 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, including the validity of the auction sale notice.

Following the decision of the Tribunal, the bank/respondent No. 3 immediately approached the respondent No. 2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for facilitating the taking of physical possession of the property.

The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 has remained unresponsive till date. There is a grievance against the bank as well for showing lethargy in following up this matter.

Ms. Sarma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that one necessary document has not been furnished by the bank for taking positive action by the respondent No. 2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act towards taking physical possession of the property in question. She submits that if all the necessary documents are furnished along with the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the competent authority, all steps shall be taken for according physical possession of the property to the bank and, ultimately, to the petitioner.

Considering the afore-noted undertaking given on behalf of the State, we close this petition with the expectation that in case all the necessary documents are furnished by the bank/respondent No. 3 within a period of three weeks from today, necessary steps shall be taken by the respondent No. 2 towards taking over physical possession of the property.

The writ petition stands disposed off.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant