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 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 21790 of 2011 CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER AND OTHERS Versus M/S KRISHNA CATIONICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.N.Roy - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Praveen Chaturvedi and Shri A Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.3.

Shri Naman Gupta and Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for respondent no.2 and 8.

Shri Sharda Prasad Punj- Advocate for respondent No.3 & 7.

Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for respondent No.3.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 2116 of 2012 M/S SUMUKH INFRAWAYS (PRIVATE ) LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE 173 ALAKHDHAM NAGAR UJJAIN Versus CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddhant Kochar, Shri Praveen Chaturvedi and Shri Alok Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Naman Gupta and Shri Ankit Saxena- Advocate for respondent No.10.

Shri Sharda Prasad Punj- Advocate for respondent No.3 &9.

WRIT PETITION No. 4045 of 2024 M/S SHREE KRISHNA CATIONICS PVT. LTD.

Versus DENA BANK AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for petitioner.

Shri Ankit Saxena and Shri Naman Gupta - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal By way of separate three writ petitions under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner and respondent no 01& 03 have challenged the impugned order passed by Debt recovery appellate tribunal Jabalpur, whereby the auction proceedings are quashed and set aside with all consequential acts and money received from the Auction Purchaser shall be refunded by the bank with simple interest @ 10% per annum.

2. Petitioner bank preferred an application S.A.No. 19/2010 under The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against the respondent No. 1 under section 17(1) of the said Act before D.R.T. Jabalpur, which was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2010. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. R-1254/2010 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad under Section 18 of the Act which was allowed by order dated 28.11.2011 and Appellate Tribunal has reversed the findings of the D.R.T. Jabalpur.

3. Facts leading to the present case are that the respondent No. 1 is one of the Directors of M/s Krishna Cationics Private Limited, which was engaged in manufacturing of cationic dyes and cationic dye intermediaries. For establishing the Unit, the respondent No.1 applied for the loan facilities from the petitioner Bank and the bank granted the Term Loan of Rs. 38.00 lacs, Rs.48.00 lacs as Cash Credit Limit and Rs. 32.00 lacs F.LC, thus the total loan was granted for a sum of Rs. 118.00 lacs in the month of August 2002.

4. Petitioner/ Bank issued notice dated 26.07.2006 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within four days of the publication. On 26.10.2006 the Bank took the possession of the factory and sealed it under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and another notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to the respondent on 05.08.2009 and the Bank did not reply to the objection lodged by the respondent and proceeded to take possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 13.10.2009. Therefore, the respondent preferred the Securitization Application before the DRT on 03.11.2009, the S.A. was registered as 49/2010. The Bank taken possession on the secured assets on 13.10.2009 and copy of the possession notice was published in the Newspaper on 16.01.2010 for sale of the properties on 17.02.2010. On 17.02.2010 the auction was held and residential house No. 102, Sethi Nagar, Ujjain was sold to Shri Kamal Kishroe Patidar and Plot No. 61 to 74, Industrial Area, was sold to M/s Sumukh Infraways Pvt. Ltd, who was declared as successful purchasers because they offered highest sale price. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed and letter was issued on17.02.2010 to the auction purchasers.

5. The learned Debt Recovery Appella