THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO. ARCIL/BANK/13(2)/22-23/1061 DATED 17.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-C) AND SET ASIDE THE POSSESSION NOTICE, DATED 15.05.2024, ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV JUDGMENT

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

PRAYER

In the circumstances, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased, in the interests of justice and equity,

(a) To set aside the Demand Notice bearing No. Arcil/bang/ 13(2)/22-23/1061 dated 17.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-C)

(b) To set aside the Possession Notice, dated 15.05.2024, issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-D)

And

(c) Pass such orders/ or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The writ petition is filed against the Asset Reconstruction Company. When this matter came up for hearing, this Court has specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/party-in-person how the writ petition is maintainable against Asset Reconstruction Company in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of S.Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.¹2025 INSC 117 and also Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others²(2022) 5 SCC 345.

3. The party-in-person had sought for time and filed his written submissions. In the written submissions, it is stated that the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application dated 24.03.2026 seeking directions for production of originals of disputed loan documents and forensic handwriting/signature examination. The petitioner's specific stand is that originals are being withheld and only photocopies were provided. It is stated that the immediate, minimum relief required at this stage is procedural and evidentiary, namely: (a) production and preservation of original documents; (b) a limited forensic comparison; (c) a short status quo/stay against further coercive steps only until such evidence preservation occurs (or until the petitioner is effectively relegated to and protected before the competent statutory forum). It is stated that the petitioner does not invite the Court to decide disputed contractual accounts on merits in writ jurisdiction. The request is confined to preventing adjudication/enforcement based on allegedly unauthenticated and withheld primary evidence and to ensure that the statutory process is not founded on documents whose authenticity is seriously disputed.

4. It is also stated that in S.Shobha’s case referred supra, it is held that a private finance company is not ‘state’ and is not ordinarily amenable to a writ; and that RBI regulation by itself does not transform a private NBFC into a writ amenable authority. The petitioner also acknowledges that in Phoenix Arc Private Limited’s case referred supra, it is held that a writ petition under Article 226 against a private ARC challenging SARFAESI action under Section 13(4) is ordinarily not maintainable and the borrower should pursue the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. It is the case of petitioner that the present case raises a distinct threshold question: whether, in view of alleged withholding of originals and pleading prima facie case of disputed/forged signatures, the petitioner may be granted limited evidence preservation directions that do not amount to a full adjudication of private contractual or SARFAESI merits. It is stated that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar and exceptions apply where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where there is failure of natural justice/fundamental procedural fairness. Submissions are also made on the merits of the ma