IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17154 of 2025 ==========================================================

LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED GOVINDBHAI KHODABHAI PANSURIYA &

ORS.

Versus BANK OF INDIA ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MITUL SHELAT with ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,1.1,1.2,1.3,2,3,4,5,6 MR SAUMITRA CHATURVEDI(8369) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,1.1,1.2,1.3,2,3,4,5,6 MS NALINI S LODHA(2128) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 17/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is praying for an appropriate writ to quash and set aside the actions of the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, more particularly, demand notice under Section 13(2), possession notice dated 07.05.2025 under Section 13(4) on the ground that the same is illegal and in violation of Section 13(3A)

of the Act.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel Mr. Mitul Shelat appearing for the petitioners is that though the petitioners had given a reply to the notice under Section 13(2), the same has not been adjudicated as per Section 13(3A) of the Act. In view thereof, he submits that further actions on the part of the respondent Bank are bad in law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Order dated 25.11.2013 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.10038 of 2013 (ii) United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and ors.

[(2010) 8 SCC 110]

(iii) ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Limited (2018 15 SCC99]

(iv) Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Tensil Steel Limited (LPA No.865 of 2006)

(v) Tensil Steel Limited vs. Punjab and Sind Bank (AIR 2007) Guj 126)

(vi) Jalaram Cotton & Proteins Limited vs. Authorized Officer Kotak Mahindar Bank Limited (SCA 14614 of 2015)

(vii) Krushna Chandra Sahoo vs. Bank of India (2008 SCC Online Ori 47)

(viii) Sunanda Kumari vs. Standard Chartered Bank (2006 SCC Online Kar 227)

(ix) Pan Pipes Resplendents ltd. vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SCA No.4045 of 207)

(x) Harsora Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank (2014 SCC Online Guj 9203)

(xi) Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India (2004 4 SCC 311)

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

4. The Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Ors. [(2024) 6 SCC

579], has held thus :-

“22. The law with regard to entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of availability of alternative remedy is well settled. In Satyawati Tondon, this Court observed thus: “43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers