[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shambhu Prasad Keshri vs Indian Bank Samb Branch Ranchi on 12 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:6523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No.1648 of 2026
----
Shambhu Prasad Keshri, aged about 60 years Son of Late Gobardhan Saw
resident of Mallah Toli P.O.& P.S Barhi, District Hazaribag Jharkhand-
825405, PAN No. CUMPK2264G, Aadhaar No.8271124918.
.... .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Indian Bank SAMB Branch Ranchi, (Stressed Assets Management
Branch) through the Chief Manager (previously Allahabad Bank now
merged with Indian Bank), having its office at 3rd Floor, Paras Complex,
Lalpur Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi P.S Lalpur District Ranchi, Jharkhand-
834001. Email Id: [email protected].
2. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank Barhi Branch, Telaiya Road Barhi
P.O.& P.S Barhi District Hazaribag, Jharkhand-825405.
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv.
----
th
02/Dated: 12 March, 2026
1. Although there are certain defects in the writ petition, the same are
ignored for the time being.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Debts Recovery
Tribunal (DRT) was not functional and, therefore, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is further
submitted that though the Tribunal may be taking up certain urgent matters,
the alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not efficacious at present.
In such circumstances, when the alternative remedy is not efficacious, the
writ petition is maintainable.
3. Heard the parties.
4. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
"for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s),
particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing /setting aside
2026:JHHC:6523
the following orders or any other writ(s),order(s) or appropriate
directions to the respondents as under:-
(i) For quashing/setting aside of order dated 22.12.2025 for
appointment of Advocate Commissioner (Annexure-4) and also
for quashing/setting aside Sale Proclamation order dated
22.12.2025 (Annexure-4/1 series) passed/issued by the Hon'ble
Recovery Officer II DRT Ranchi in R.C.Case No. 414 of 2024
in case no. O.A. 10 of 2024 whereby and where under the
immovable properties attached are ordered to be sold under Rule
52 of the second schedule of Income Tax Rules read with
section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 by public Auction through e-auction on
13.03.2026 between 11.00 am to 12.00 noon which is absolutely
illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair.
(ii) Be pleased to direct the respondent bank authority not to
proceed further for confirmation of the sale in pursuance to the
E-auction sale notice dated 22.12.2025 as the petitioner is now
ready to deposit the Reserve Price amount of Rs. 33, 75,000/- or
1/3rd share of Outstanding dues amount Rs. 1,09,69,499/- as on
22.11.2023 to the respondent bank within a period of six months
and 20% thereof shall be deposited within one month.
(iii) Be pleased to pass an appropriate order for stay of operation
of orders dated 22.12.2025 (i) for appointment of Advocate
Commissioner and (ii) Sale Proclamation for Sale of Attached
Properties through e-auction passed by the Hon'ble Recovery
Officer II DRT Ranchi in R.C Case No.414 of 2024 arising out
of O.A.No. 10 of 2024 and subsequently all proceedings to be
taken in pursuance to the said notice during pendency of the
instant writ application."
5. It appears that the petitioner had availed a loan and for recovery of the
same, an Original Application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
which was registered as O.A. Case No. 10 of 2024. The said O.A. Case
proceeded ex parte and an ex parte order was passed on 25.06.2024. Though
the said order is appealable, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner
on the ground that he came to know about the ex parte proceedings only
after receiving notice in the recovery proceedings being R.C. Case No. 414
of 2024. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner appeared in the R.C.
Case on 11.09.2024 and filed his objection therein. Ultimately, the Recovery
Officer passed an order on 22.12.2025 directing auction of the mortgaged
property.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim protection may
be granted to the petitioner so as to enable him to file an appeal and pursue
the remedy available to him in accordance with law. It has further been
Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.1648 of 2026
2026:JHHC:6523
alleged that the borrower is a partnership firm and only the present petitioner
has been targeted, while the other partner has been left out.
7. Learned counsel for the Bank has supported the impugned order.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
records, it appears that though an alternative remedy is available, the same
has not been availed by the petitioner till date. Interim protection can
ordinarily be granted only when there is a prima facie case showing that the
original order is under serious challenge. In the present case, the original
order is dated 25.06.2024 against which no appeal has been filed till date.
Moreover, the matter arises out of a commercial transaction.
9. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.
10. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, the pending I.A., if any,
also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Dated: 12th March, 2026
Amar/-
Uploaded on 13.03.2026
Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.1648 of 2026
