Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mr. Ankit Soni vs Bank Of India on 5 June, 2025

Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

                                                             1                               WP-20012-2025
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     WP No. 20012 of 2025
                                             (MR. ANKIT SONI AND OTHERS Vs BANK OF INDIA )



                          Dated : 05-06-2025
                                Shri Mirza Suhail - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                None for the respondent.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.5.2025, annexure P/3 passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T. in S.A.No.449/2025.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a borrower in relation to the vehicle/cash credit facilities availed by them from the respondent/Bank on 7.12.2022. Because of some difficulties, the petitioner could not maintain the loan account and failed to repay the dues within the timeline. Hence, the Authorised Officer of the respondent/Bank initiated proceedings and took physical possession of the hypotheticated vehicle on 15.1.2025 with the help of S.H.O. Kotwali, Damoh. Thereafter, the Bank had issued auction notice dated 16.3.2025 and scheduled for auction on 9.4.2025 but as no bid was received, the auction conducted on 9.4.2025 was

failed. Consequently, second auction notice dated 17.4.2025 was issued for scheduled auction on 9.5.2025. The petitioner had challenged the said notice dated 17.4.2025 before the D.R.T. Jabalpur under the SARFAESI Act which was registered as S.A.No.449/2025. Reply, annexure P/2 was submitted by the Bank admitting the loan agreement executed between the parties. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the S.A. vide order dated 9.5.2025, annexure

2 WP-20012-2025 P/3 holding that as the Bank has not proceeded under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and rule 4(1) and 6 of the SARFAESI Rules, 2002 for auction of the hypotheticated vehicle, therefore, under rule 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the application is not maintainable having no cause of action.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitIoner that SARFASI Act is applicable on bare perusal of clause 14 and 15 of the agreement (filed along with the reply of the Bank before the D.R.T. placed on record), and such proceedings cannot be done except under SARFASI Act. He relied upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Dhananjay Seth Vs. Union of India, reported in 2023 SCC Online Pat 1393 Para 65 and submitted that these proceedings are required to be and in fact under the SARFAESI Act.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fees by RAD

mode, within seven working days.

Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks. In the meanwhile, as submitted by the petitioner, the auction proceedings pending in respect of the vehicle in question shall remain stayed until further orders.

Certified copy today.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) (DEEPAK KHOT) V. JUDGE V. JUDGE HS