IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN &

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 25 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 3535 of 2025 M/S JAISHREE RAIL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHERS Versus UNION BANK OF INDIA Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anuj Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Kapil Duggal - Advocate for the respondent-Bank.

ORDER Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-18) in Securitization Application No.407/2025 passed by the learned DRT, Jabalpur. By the said order, the conditional interim relief from the forceful possession of two of its properties was granted to the petitioner, subject to the payment of Rs.2 crores to the bank. It is also necessary to mention here that if the amount of Rs.2 crore was deposited by the petitioner with the bank, then the sale certificate in favour of auction purchaser would not be executed by the bank. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner became a defaulter of the bank to the tune of more than Rs.6 crores. Three properties Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET were offered as collateral securities. The main contention of the petitioner was that with reference to section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, that before proceedings to take forcible possession of the properties of the petitioner, the provisions of section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, were mandatorily required to be complied with. The first step in that process was the classification of the petitioner's account as a non-performing assets by the bank and thereafter, a notice has to be issued to the borrower, in writing, to discharge his full liabilities to the bank within 60 days from the date of the notice, failing which, the bank would be entitled to take such measures against the properties pledged as collateral security as provided under section 13(4) of the Securitization Act. However, the petitioner has also submitted that it was essential that once a notice, under section 13(2) was received by the petitioner, the petitioner had a right to prefer a representation under Section 13(3A) and if the objection/proposal of the borrower is not acceptable to the bank, the same shall be intimated in writing to the borrower within 15 days of the receipt of his representation. Undisputedly, there has been compliance upto Section 13(3A), whereby the representation/proposal put forth by the petitioner was rejected by the bank.

3. Learned Counsel, in order to overcome the barrier of approaching this Court while there exists an alternate remedy in the form of an appeal to the DRAT, has put forth the argument that where the regulations of the RBI have not been followed/ complied with by the bank, in such a situation it is the settled law that the petitioner can approach the High Court under article 227 of Constitution of India. In order to buttress his submissions, he has relied Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET upon the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in WP No.14010 of 2024, dated 31.07.2024, where in a similar situation, the petition filed by the defaulting banks were considered and how in the light of an alternate remedy also, the learned co-ordinate bench relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner in those cases fell within the "exceptional category", wherein it was not necessary to avail the alternate remedy.

4. It is further argued before this court, that the legal infirmity in the impugned order was that the learned DRT did not consider at all the submission put forth by the petitioners before it that the rules and regulations of the RBI relating to MSMEs, sought to be proceeded against under the SARFAESI Act, were not observed by the respondent bank here. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred t