Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings are not maintainable, as aggrieved persons have alternative remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P4, rejection of request for extension of time for payment of the balance bid amount, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the rejection of extension request dated 04/03/2026 and communicated by the 1st respondent to the petitioner under its letter with reference no. BOB/162/CANNAN/2026-27 dated 04/03/2026 and after calling for records related to the same from the 1st respondent.

ii. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the request for extension dated 04/03/2026 made by the petitioner in a time bound manner and within a time as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.

iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to allow the request dated 04/03/2026 of the petitioner and extend the period for paying the balance bid amount by 15 days from

05/03/2026.”

2. The petitioner participated in the auction sale of the property scheduled in Ext.P1, conducted by the respondents and he was the highest bidder. The 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P2, accepted the bid offered by the petitioner and accordingly, he deposited 25% of the entire bid amount, within time. Thereafter, the petitioner could not raise the balance amount within the time stipulated in Ext.P2, for the reasons beyond his control. Then the 2^nd respondent bank extended the period to remit the balance amount upto 05.03.2026. Since the petitioner could not remit the amount within the aforesaid period, he approached the secured creditor again by filing Ext.P3 request dated 04.03.2026, seeking extension of the period by 15 days. But the respondents, as per Ext.P4 rejected the request for extension stating that statutory time limit of 90 days got exhausted on 05.03.2026. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the afore reliefs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 cannot be considered as a confirmation issued by the secured creditor, thereby making the petitioner liable to pay the balance bid amount within the period stated therein. He argued that Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2002 Rules’, for short), postulates confirmation into two stages; first, immediately after the sale, after accepting the bid and second, after the payment of 25% of the bid amount, by the secured creditor. He submitted that the period of 90 days for which extension can be granted as per Rule 9(4) of the 2002 Rules, has to be calculated from the date of confirmation of the sale by the secured creditor and not from the date on which the authorised officer accepted the bid of the petitioner. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Birani (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Prem Narain Sehgal and another [ (2018) 5 SCC 543 ], in support of his contentions. Hence, he contended that Ext.P4 cannot be sustained and prayed that this Court may permit the petitioner to deposit the balance bid amount.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. He, by relying on Section 17 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act, for short) contended that all the questions now raised in this writ petition can very well be considered by t