##PAGE1##

1

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-D

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3313/2025

[Arising out of the Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 16-01-

2025 in CWP No.987/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh]

M/S BHASKAR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Petitioners

VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents

(IA No.32201/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT; IA No.32202/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., and; IA

No.32204/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

DATE : 19-05-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For Petitioners Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Singh, AoR

Mr. S. Prasada Rao, Adv.

Mr. Madhuraj Singh Inda, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AoR

Ms. Richa Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Mrinalini Tandon, Adv.

Ms. Kashish Tewatia, Adv.

Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AoR

Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.

Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pushkar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by O R D E R

SAPNA BISHT

Date: 2026.05.20

13:17:19 IST

Reason:

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and

respondent no.1-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as

2

‘SBI’). Learned counsel for the respondents no.2-6/State of Haryana

and its officers is also present. Albeit, the lis is inter-se the

petitioners and respondent no.1-SBI.

FACTUAL SETTING:

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment/Order dated

16.01.2025 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-987-2025 [2025:PHHC:005416-

DB]¹ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), by which

the writ petition filed by respondent no.1-SBI for execution of

Order dated 29.05.2024 passed in its favour by the District

Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar under Section 14 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’)

with regard to taking over of possession of the properties of the

petitioners, has been disposed of as follows:

‘6. In view of the limited prayer, this petition is

disposed of with a direction to respondents No.3 to 5 to

implement order passed on 29.05.2024 (Annexure P-20/T) to

enable the petitioner to take physical possession of the

property in accordance with law expeditiously preferably

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order.

3. The petitioner no.1-Company had availed a loan of

Rs.8,09,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore and Nine Lakhs) from the

respondent no.1-SBI in the year 2019. However, due to non-payment

of any instalment, after about five-six months, on 29.07.2019, the

concerned account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset

(hereinafter referred to as ‘NPA’). Thereafter, the respondent

1 State Bank of India v State of Haryana and Others

3

no.1-SBI sought to take possession of the immovable properties

belonging to the petitioners and filed an application under Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act on 22.02.2020 before the District

Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, who passed Order dated 29.05.2024.

Thereafter, the respondent no.1-SBI moved before the High Court by

filing the underlying writ petition on 16.12.2024 and the Impugned

Order came to be passed, directing as above.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, for the

petitioners submitted that within five-six months of the loan being

availed of by the petitioners, the account was declared as an NPA,

which was totally arbitrary and against the policy/scheme of

respondent no.1-SBI itself. It was submitted that as per the

policy/scheme of the respondent no.1-SBI, an offer was made by the

petitioners to repay the entire principal amount but the same has

not been acted upon. It was further contended that