[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Axis Bank Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:17655
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1556 of 2026
Axis Bank Ltd. Through Its Authorized Officer, Mr. Shivanshu Pandey Having Its
Branch Office At RAC, Pandri Branch, Near Shree Shivam, Jeewan Beema Marg,
Raipur (C.G.) 492001
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tehsildar, Raipur Mantralaya Complex, Byron
Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)-492002
2 - District Magistrate, Raipur, Collectorate, Kutchary Chowk, Civil Lines, Raipur
(C.G.) 492001
3 - SDM, Raipur Mantralaya Complex, Byron Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 492002
4 - Maljamadar Raipur Mantralaya Complex, Byron Bazar, District Raipur
(C.G.)492002
5 - M/s Nanak Traders, Through Its Proprietor Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa Raipur,
Near City Centre Mall, District Raipur (C.G.)492001
6 - Shri Nanak Ram Tanwani S/o Shri Jairam Das Tanwani 707/708, Khushi Vihar,
Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006
7 - Shri Nikhil Tanwani S/o Nanak Ram Tanwani 707/708, Khushi Vihar Near White
House, Avanti Vihar,telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006
8 - Shri Santosh Kumar Tanwani S/o Shri Jairam Das Tanwani 707/708, Khushi
Vihar, Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006
9 - Smt. Meena Tanwani W/o Shri Nanak Ram Tanwani , 707/708, Khushi Vihar,
Near White House, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 492006
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dubey, Adv. thro. VC and Mr.
Rajvansh Singh, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 4/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer
Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.04.20
17:52:51
+0530
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
17.4.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by non-execution of order dated
23.6.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under the
provisions of Section 14 of the Secutarization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of
2002').
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite there
being clear order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Raipur vide Annexure-P/1, the Tahsildar, Raipur failed to
discharge his statutory duty. He further submits that non-performing Assets
are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system
and, therefore, the Tahsildar, Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur is under obligation to
comply with the direction/order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under
the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Hence, learned counsel prays
that direction may be issued to the Tahsildar, Raipur to comply with the order
dated 23.6.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under
Section 14 of the Act of 2002.
3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has no objection
in allowing the petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. It is surprising to note that time and again, this Court is coming across
cause of action raised by the Bank aggrieved by the fact that order passed
under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is not being executed by the Tahsildar.
The scheme of the Act of 2002 enjoins the District Magistrate / Chief Judicial
Magistrate to pass an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within the
extended period of 60 days and thereafter, the Tahsildar or the concerned
Revenue Authority to execute such order without any unnecessary delay.
Merely because, time frame is not prescribed for execution of an order
passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, does not mean that the
concerned Tahsildar would sit over the matter, thereby frustrating the object of
the Act of 2002.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.D. Jain & Co. Vs.
Capital First Limited and Others, reported in 2023 (1) SCC 675, while
explaining the object of jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 held
as under :
"23. However, for taking physical possession of the
secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI
Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM
by way of a written application requesting for taking
possession of the secured assets and documents relating
thereto and for being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for
further action. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the
CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a
written application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act
from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such
an application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass
an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by
the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section
14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that
regard, to take possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the
secured creditor at the earliest opportunity.
24. As mandated by Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the
CMM/DM has to act within the stipulated time-limit and pass
a suitable order for the purpose of taking possession of the
secured assets within a period of 30 days from the date of
application which can be extended for such further period but
not exceeding in the aggregate, sixty days. Thus, the powers
exercised by the CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot
brook delay. Time is of the essence. This is the spirit of the
special enactment."
7. In the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Girnar
Corrugators Private Limited and Others, reported in 2023 (3) SCC 210,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos. 33, 34 & 35 as
under :
"33. Even otherwise the Naib Tehsildar was not at all
justified in not taking possession of the secured assets
/properties as per order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the
District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
The order passed by the Naib Tehsildar refusing to take
possession of the secured assets / properties despite the
order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on the
ground that recovery certificates issued by respondent No. 1
for recovery of the orders passed by the Facilitation Council
are pending, is wholly without jurisdiction. While exercising
power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, even the
District Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or District
Magistrate and/or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between
secured creditor and debtor.
34. Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District
Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the case
may be is required to assist the secured creditor in getting
the possession of the secured assets. Under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act, neither District Magistrate nor
Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to
adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the
secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved
by the steps under Section 13(4)/order passed under
Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the
Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
35. Therefore, the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar
refusing to take the possession pursuant to the order passed
by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act was wholly without jurisdiction and therefore also the
same was liable to be set aside."
8. Accordingly, Tahsildar, Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur is directed to comply
with the order dated 23.6.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Raipur in MJC No.1012/25 (Annexure-P/1) expeditiously, preferably within a
maximum period of 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this
order.
9. With aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed
of.
10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Bini
