Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Iifl Home Finance Limited A Non ... vs The State Of Makdhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23639
1 WP-31780-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31780 of 2025
M/S IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED A NON BANKING FINANCIAL
COMPANY THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SHRI AS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAKDHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Saboo - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) That, a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the
respondents No. 6 and 7 (borrowers) to immediately vacate the
premises forming the part of the secured asset and handover the same to
the petitioner bank.
(b) That, a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the
respondent No. 2 to 3 and be directed to take action against the erring
borrowers and take steps to vacate the premises forming the part of the
secured asset by removing the erring borrowers and restoring the
possession to the petitioner bank.
(c) That, any other direction in the nature of a writ, or order as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit, may kindly be granted.
2. As per the facts of the case, the respondents No. 6 and 7 (borrower)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23639
2 WP-31780-2025
mortgaged the immovable property situated at Plot No. BF 02, Survey No.
249/1/1, Gram - Banjali, District Ratlam admeasuring 377 sq. ft. with the
petitioner/bank (secured creditor) in order to get financial assistance of Rs.
3,10,114/-. Due to default in repayment, the account of the borrowers was
classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
application 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') before the Additional Collector, Raltam which came to be
allowed vide order dated 24.06.2024. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the
Tehsildar, Ratlam took possession of the mortgaged property and handed over the
same to the petitioner on 13.06.2025. Thereafter, on 15.06.2025, the borrower
forcibly entered into and took over illegal possession of the mortgage property.
On 16.06.2025, the petitioner filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police,
Ratlam / respondent No.2 but no action whatsoever, has been taken. Hence, this
petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in case of Capri Global
Housing Finance Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition No.
21222 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025 in support of his contention. The operative
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below for ready reference :
''16. The Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.11500/2020 also observed that
"Therefore,, it is clear that the action taken under section 14 of the Act by the District
Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not adjudicatory but merely
ministerial, consequent to the action taken by the secured creditor requiring the
District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan magistrate to assist the secure creditor to
take possession of the secured asset and their action would in effect be deemed to be
an action for and on behalf of the secured creditors."
17. If one can see powers of the revenue Authorities/ Executive Magistrate while
keeping Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in juxtaposition to Section 248 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23639
3 WP-31780-2025
MPLRC then it appears that authorities deserve to execute the work again in case of
such event as referred above.
18. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks parity with the order dated
16.06.2025 passed in W.P. No. 1681/2025.
19. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that the respondent authorities are required to provide assistance and
aid to the petitioner in dispossessing the borrower from the mortgaged property (in
question). Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed.
Respondents are directed to provide necessary assistance to the petitioner to
dispossess the borrower from the mortgaged property and hand over the possession
of the property in question to the petitioner in accordance with law.''
4. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the
SHO, Industrial Area, District Ratlam / respondent No. 3 to conduct an enquiry in
respect of the complaint (Annexure P/4) filed by the petitioner and if it is found
that the respondents No. 6 and 7 have illegally taken the possession of the
mortgage property, then a report be submitted to the Additional District
Magistrate, Ratlam / respondent No.5 who shall pass necessary orders for re-
execution of the order dated 24.06.2024. However, before complying with the
aforesaid order and handing over the possession of mortgaged property to the
petitioner, the respondents shall verify whether the respondents No. 6 and 7 have
obtained any temporary injunction from the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any other
authority.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
