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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 17 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 4339 of 2008 DINESH SHRIVASTAVA Versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION HOUSING Appearance:

Shri Syed Abdul Waqil - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshat Shukla - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:-

"{A} The Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to command the respondents not to take possession of the mortgage property of the petitioner otherwise therein accordance with section 13(2) ana 13(4) of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, further the respondent be directed to furnish to the petitioner of details of instalment dues against the petitioner, (B) Any other relief deems fit and proper in the facts and Circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner be also granted, {C} Cost of the petition."

2. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent for a grant of a loan amount of Rs.175,000/- for the purchase of a house. On 07.12.1998 the loan application was approved for Rs.175,000/- at the rate of interest of 14% p.a. The term of the loan was 15 years, and repayment was to be made in Equal Monthly Instalments (EMIs). The petitioner mortgaged a property in order to secure the loan amount. The respondent/LIC Housing Finance issued a letter dated 15.9.2003 reminding the petitioner to repay the remaining overdues amounting to Rs.110,356/- as of 01.9.2000, and the outstanding dues along with interest are Rs.150,207/-. Thereafter, several reminders were issued, but the petitioner did not repay the loan amount regularly.

3. According to the petitioner, he demanded the loan statement from the respondent, which was not supplied to him; therefore, he did not repay the loan amount. The petitioner has filed this present petition apprehending dispossession from the house. He was given an offer by the respondent that if he pays the amount before 30.9.2003, then he shall be given 100% relaxation in fees, the rate of interest will be reduced from 17% to 9% and the instalment amount will be reduced from Rs.2400/- to Rs.1820/- per month. The petitioner himself did not avail of the benefit of the aforesaid offer and did not settle/reschedule the loan amount and has approached this Court apprehending dispossession from the house.

4. After notice, the respondent filed a reply by submitting that this petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has a remedy under section 17 of the SARFESI Act. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the order dated 15.7.2025 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.7979/2025 [LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Nagson and Company and others] and Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. [Civil Appeal No.1281/2018 decided on

30.1.2018].

5. The principal Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act provides that a secured creditor has a right to take possession of the secured assets, including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale without intervention of the court. The first step is to issue a demand notice under section 13 of the aforesaid Act by giving 60 days' time to the borrower to repay the loan amount. If after receipt of notice the borrower does not make any representation, then the creditor may take possession of the secured asset under section 13(4) thereof. As per the provision to section 13(3A) of the SARFESI Act, the borrower has no right to approach the DRT under section 17 thereof. The borrower only gets the remedy to approach the Tribunal only when the secured creditor takes any or all measures referred to in section 13(4) of the Act. In compliance of the last order-sheet the respondent has supplied the current debt upon the petitioner, which has come to Rs.15,40,323.05. Therefore, it is very unfo