[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8696
1 WP-9461-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9461 of 2026
BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LTD THROUGH AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY MR DEEPAK KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshul Dabhade, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent(s) / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The petitioner is challenging the procedure adopted by the Upper
Collector, Mandsaur while deciding the application under Section 14 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. He has drawn our attention to the order sheets
which shows that the said authority on the application filed by the petitioner /
Secured Creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has issued
notices to the borrower and thereafter the case is kept pending since
19.09.2025.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the procedure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8696
2 WP-9461-2026
adopted by the said authority is contrary to the procedure prescribed under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 under the law.
03. We have noticed that in number of cases the District Authorities
are not deciding the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 in accordance with law and contrary to the law and the object of
Section 14 of the Act they are issuing notices to the borrower and keeping
the matter pending. In the present case, we find that the application is
pending since August, 2025.
04. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the respondent No.2 to decide
the pending application of the petitioner within ten days from the date of
filing of the certified copy of the order passed today.
05. As per the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. v/s
State of M.P. passed in Writ Petition No.26176 of 2023 decided on
23.11.2023, it has already been held that for deciding an application under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the notices are not required to be issued to
the borrower. The Court has further held that while deciding the application,
the authority has to consider only two aspects :-
(i) Whether the secured assets fall within the territorial jurisdiction ?.
(ii) Whether notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has
been furnished or not ?.
06. The following order was passed after para 21, which reads as
under :-
"Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General, High
Court of M.P, Jabalpur.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8696
3 WP-9461-2026
The Registrar General, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur is directed to
circulate the copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges
in the State of M.P. with a direction to circulate this order amongst
Chief Judicial Magistrate who are exercising powers under the
SARFAESI Act in their respective districts. The Registrar General
is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Bhopal with a request to circulate
this order amongst all DM/ADM in the State of Madhya Pradesh
only for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary delays and unwanted
procedures giving rise to flooding of High Court with unwanted
litigation."
07. Despite the said order the competent authorities are still issuing
the notices to the borrower and following the procedure as if the matter is
being heard on merits. It is well settled that the proceedings under Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act is a special kind of administrative function. The
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.)
shall circulate this order to all the District Magistrate / Additional District
Magistrate of the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of avoiding
unnecessary delay and unwanted procedures.
08. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
