[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The South Indian Bank Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. ... vs M/S J. S. Transport Corporation, ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:5853-DB
40-WP-5968-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 2025
(The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. J.S. Transport Corporation & Ors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. S.N. Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.H. Agrawal, Counsel (through VC) with Mr. Shamish
Agrawal, Counsel for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
APRIL 15, 2026
The petitioner - Bank has approached this
Court by filing this Writ Petition raising challenge to the
order dated 5/8/2025 passed below Exhibit 1 by the 4 th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 2749/2025, thereby
rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner -
secured creditor under Section 14 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "Act of 2002").
2] The reason for rejection of said application
is that in earlier proceedings, i.e., in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 705/2025, there is an
order in existence passed under Section 14 of the Act of
2002 in respect of the secured assets relating to the
subject matter of the said application. The learned Judge
observed that once possession warrant is issued by the
Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
705/2025 in respect of the secured assets, the Court
again cannot assist the secured creditor for taking
possession of the same secured assets for a different loan
transaction.
3] Thus, it is evident that the only ground, on
which the application was rejected, is that, similar order
cannot be passed in respect of a different loan
transaction.
4] Mr. S.N. Kumar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, has relied upon a judgment of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sri Balaji
Centrifugal Castings Vs. ICICI Bank Limited and Ors.
[MANU/HY/0030/2018 decided on 12/7/2018],
wherein, it is held that there is no bar to a secured
creditor maintaining more than a single application under
Section 14(1) of the Act of 2002 for securing the
possession of the very same secured asset. While arriving
at such a conclusion, the Court observed thus :
"18. The other aspects argued by Sri Vedula
Venkataramana, learned senior counsel, with
regard to the secured shed sold by the bank
ceasing to be of such character and status after
its sale, thereby divesting the bank of its right
to invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, does
not merit consideration in the light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Blue Coast
Hotels Limited 2018 SCC ONLINE SC
237(supra). No doubt, that was not a case
where Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had
been invoked prior to the sale, as in the case on
hand, but the observations of the Supreme
Court to the effect that even after such sale, the
secured creditor would be at liberty to invoke
the power thereunder squarely settles the issue.
Further, we find no logic or rationale in the plea
that a secured creditor can invoke the power
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act only
once. To accept this proposition would mean
that an unscrupulous borrower may defeat the
very purpose of initiation of SARFAESI
proceedings by prevailing over the Advocate-
Commissioner appointed in exercise of power
under Section 14 and thereby nullify the entire
recovery proceedings initiated by such secured
creditor. The language of the provision
demonstrates that an application can be made
thereunder for taking possession of the secured
asset or if it is required to be sold or
transferred. Therefore, there is no embargo
evident from the provision itself curtailing the
right of the secured creditor to invoke it but
only once. Be it noted that this provision is a
machinery provision intended to give effect to
the regime created under the SARFAESI Act,
whereby a secured creditor is allowed the
benefit of deviating from the ordinary legal
process for recovering its dues and bring a
mortgaged asset to sale for the said purpose, by
duly following the procedure prescribed
thereunder. Such a machinery provision cannot
be construed or interpreted in a narrow
compass to the extent that it would defeat the
very purpose underlying the enactment, as
advocated by Sri Vedula Venkataramana,
learned senior counsel. Significantly, in M/S.
Kathikkal Tea Plantations v. State Bank of India
MANU/TN/1926/2009: AIR 2010 Madras 24,
Dilip Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. 2013 ILR Vol.
1 Allahabad 113 and Punjab National Bank v.
State of U.P. 2017 (2) Banking Cases 500
(Allahabad), the Madras and Allahabad High
Courts held that Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act could be invoked by a secured creditor even
after sale of the secured asset."
5] Mr. R.H. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondents, is not disputing the aforesaid legal position,
however, he opposed the petition on the ground that the
petitioner is already having an order in respect of M/s.
J.S. Transport Corporation under Section 14 of the Act of
2002, and therefore, second application, for same
purpose, is not maintainable.
6] Per contra, Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the order dated 5/6/2025
passed below Exh. 1 by the 13 th Joint Civil Judge Senior
Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur,
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1930/2025,
under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, was in respect of the
third property, which is not same as involved in the
present petition.
7] Thus, it is evident that the objection raised
by Mr. Agrawal to the maintainability of the petition does
not survive.
8] As far as other objection is concerned, Mr.
Agrawal submits that there are some proceedings filed
before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),
Mumbai, which are pending, and against one of the
respondents, interim moratorium is in force.
9] Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, has pointed out that earlier, two proceedings
were filed before NCLT; both were denied to be
registered, and thereafter, re-filing was made, and after
re-filing, one of the applications was rejected on merits.
He has further relied upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs.
Union of India [MANU/MHOR/9725/2024 decided on
3/5/2024], wherein, it is held that in case of re-filing,
interim moratorium will not commence. Paragraph 15 of
the said judgment, which is relevant, reads thus :
"15. In addition to the above, considering that
interim moratorium commences on e-filing of
the applications, i.e., uploading of the
document prior to any scrutiny, there is a
possibility that parties who have had their
applications declined due to failure to comply
with the notices and timelines issued by
Respondent No.2, proceed to e-file their
applications again. In such cases, the aggrieved
persons have a remedy under Rule 63 of the
NCLT Rules to prefer an appeal within the
period stipulated. Any application which had
earlier been dismissed and is refiled without
resorting to the due process under law, ought
not to be considered valid and shall not be
considered as 'filed' for the purposes of Section
96 of the IBC. The same shall be ignored and
no cognizance shall be taken of the same."
10] In light of the above referred law laid down
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it cannot be said
that interim moratorium is commenced in this petition.
11] Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Order dated 5/8/2025 passed below Exhibit 1 by the 4 th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 2749/2025, is quashed
and set aside. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 2749/2025, filed by the petitioner -
bank, is allowed.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/04/2026 20:28:33
