[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Canara Bank vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:10196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2334 of 2026
-----
Canara Bank, represented through its Authorized Officer,
Specialised A.R.M. Branch, being Mr. Keshava Ranjan, aged about
37 years son of Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, both having their office
at "Canara Bank," ARMB Branch, Pee Pee Compund, P.O. GPO &
P.S. Lower Bazar, District: Ranchi ....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. District Magistrate cum Dy. Commissioner East Singhbhum having
its office at Collectoriate, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West
Singhbhum
3. M/s K J Enterprises unit at Pandrasali Chowk P.O: Pandrasali,
P.S. Muffasil, Chaibasa, District: West Singhbhum, Pin: 831002,
State: Jharkhand through its Director
4. Sharad Chandra Tiu, son of Jaysingh Tiu, resident of Village
Keshergaria, P.O: Rajnagar, P.S. Rajnagar, Seraikela, District:
Seraikela Kharsawan, Pin: 831002, State: Jharkhand.
5. Kumudini Jonko, wife of Dibar Jonko, resident of House no.
2263/A99, Near St. Francis School, Tungri Tola, Harmu, P.O.
Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District: Ranchi, Pin: 834002, State:
Jharkhand.
6. Dibar Jonko, son of Sidio Jonko, resident of House no. 2263/A99,
Near St. Francis School, Tungri Tola, Argora, Harmu, P.O, Ashok
Nagar, P.S. Argora, District: Ranchi, Pin: 834002, State:
Jharkhand ... Respondent(s)
------
With
W.P.(C) No. 2335 of 2026
Canara Bank, represented through its Authorized Officer,
Specialised A.R.M. Branch, being Mr. Keshava Ranjan, aged about
37 years son of Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, both having their office
at "Canara Bank," ARMB Branch, Pee Pee Compund, P.O. GPO &
P.S. Lower Bazar, District: Ranchi ....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. District Magistrate cum Dy. Commissioner East Singhbhum having
its office at Collectoriate, P.O. & P.S. Sakshi, District West
Singhbhum
3. M/s Sai Steel Furniture, through its proprietor Shekh Aslam, unit at
Kitadih Ghariwan, Jamshedpur, P.O: Tatanagar, P.S. Tatanagar,
District: East Singhbhum, Pin: 831002, State: Jharkhand.
4. Shekh Aslam, son of Shkh Sadik resident of 247 Gariwan Patti,
East Kitadih, Parsudih, Jamshedpur, P.O: Parsudih, P.S. Parsudih,
District: East Singhbhum, Pin: 831002, State: Jharkhand
... Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(C) No. 2336 of 2026
Canara Bank, represented through its Authorized Officer,
Specialised A.R.M. Branch, being Mr. Keshava Ranjan, aged about
1
2026:JHHC:10196
37 years son of Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, both having their office
at "Canara Bank," ARMB Branch, Pee Pee Compund, P.O. GPO &
P.S. Lower Bazar, District: Ranchi ....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. District Magistrate cum Dy. Commissioner East Singhbhum having
its office at Collectoriate, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East
Singhbhum.
3. Swati Bajpayee, wife of Sandeep Kumar Bajpayee, resident of
Bajpayee Niwas, Bunglow No 69, Dimna Road, Near Blue Bells
School, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O: Mango, P.S. Mango, District:
East Singhbhum, Pin: 831012, State: Jharkhand.
4. Sandeep Kumar Bajpayee, son of Shiv Kumar Bajpayee resident
of Bajpayee Niwas, Bunglow No. 69, Dimna Road, Near Blue Bells
School, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O: Mango, P.S. Mango, District:
East Singhbhum, Pin: 831012, State: Jharkhand... Respondent(s)
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vaishnavi Kaushik, Advocate
: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, AC to AG
: Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC (Mines)-III
.........
02/ 09.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner in these writ petitions have prayed for a direction
upon Respondents No. 2 to show cause as to why the applications
made by the petitioner bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
registered as Miscellaneous/SARFAESI Cases No. 03/2025-26,
35/2024-25, and 38/2024-25, have been kept pending; and to direct
Respondent No. 2 to pass final order upon the pending applications of
the petitioner bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in
accordance with law.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner bank
provided loans to private respondents who are either partnership firms or
proprietor or in personal capacity secured by mortgages over immovable
properties. The borrowers- respondents failed to maintain financial
discipline, resulting in their loan accounts being classified as Non-
Performing Assets (NPA) and the bank initiated action under the
SARFAESI Act, issuing demand notices and taking symbolic
2026:JHHC:10196
possession. The bank then filed applications under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession, but despite the matter
being heard, no final orders have been passed. As a result, all the
applications are still pending, causing delay and hardship to the bank.
Being aggrieved the petitioner Bank filed these writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such inaction
is illegal, amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction, and is causing
serious prejudice and delay in recovery. He further submits that this
delay violates statutory provisions, as Section 14 proceedings are
merely ministerial and do not require adjudication or hearing. He also
submits that despite repeated follow-ups, no response was received,
leaving the bank with no alternative remedy. Thus, the pending
application should be decided and disposed off as delay amounts to
failure to exercise jurisdiction and infringes upon its legal rights.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that the competent authority- respondent no.2 has been
exercising its statutory powers under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in
accordance with law and is bound to ensure that all procedural
requirements and safeguards are observed while deciding applications
under Section 14. He further submits that any delay in passing the final
order is attributable to procedural requirements, hearings, and ensuring
that the rights of all parties, including borrowers, are protected. He also
submits that the petitioner cannot claim automatic entitlement to
possession of secured assets without due compliance with statutory
procedures.
6. After hearing the parties, I find that only grievance of the
petitioner in these writ petitions is that the petitioner bank has filed
applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act seeking physical
possession of secured assets which are still pending and he seeks
direction upon the respondent authorities to pass a final order upon the
pending applications.
7. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with a
direction to Respondents No. 2 to decide the pending applications under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Miscellaneous/SARFAESI Cases
2026:JHHC:10196
No. 03/2025-26, 35/2024-25, and 38/2024-25, within a reasonable time,
keeping in mind that time is of the essence under the SARFAESI Act,
after giving due consideration to all relevant facts, documents, and
ensuring that procedural safeguards are duly observed.
8. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions stand
disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
09.04.2026
Tanuj/CP-2
Uploaded on 10.04.2026
