Rohit Kumar And Anr vs Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 215 Patna

Patna High Court

Rohit Kumar And Anr vs Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, ... on 12 May, 2025

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12876 of 2017
     ======================================================
1.    Rohit Kumar
2.   Ravi Raj Kumar, Both are Sons of Late Om Prakash Prasad, Resident of
     Ward No. 12, Nokha, P.O. and P.S. Nokha, District-Rohtas


                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus

1.   Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Ara Through Its Cheif Manager,
     Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Ara.
2.   Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Nokha Branch, Nokha, District
     Rohtas.
3.   Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nokha Branch, Nokha, District
     Rohtas
4.   Madan Prasad Keshari, Son of Late Muni Lal Keshari, Proprietor Keshari
     Dresses Now Keshari Fancy Dresses, Nokha, P.S. Nokha, District- Rohtas.


                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :    Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :    Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
     For the P.N.B.         :    Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
                                 Mr. Ram Ganesh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA
     CHAKRAVARTHY
                           ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-05-2025

1. The petitioner has filed the present

Writ application to set aside the possession notice

dated 22.02.2017 issued by the respondent-bank

in exercise of power under Section 13 of the

Securitization and Re-construction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.12876 of 2017 dt.12-05-2025

2002 read with the Security Interest (Enforcement)

Rules, 2002 and further to direct the respondent-

bank not to take any coercive step against the

petitioners, for recovery of loan amount granted to

private-respondent no. 4 for which the petitioners

are the guarantor and/or to grant any other relief.

2. Heard the Learned counsel for the

petitioners and perused the entire documents on

record.

3. The pleadings disclose that the

petitioners stood as guarantor for the 4th

respondent cash credit A/c No.6484008700000364

and were challenging the notice under Section

13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which was issued to the

borrower seeking protection from the auction. As

per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P)Ltd.

& Ors., (2024) 2 SCC 1, and in United Bank of

India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others and in

PHR Invent Educational Society vs. Uco Bank

and Others Civil Appeal No. 4845 of 2024

arising out of SLP© No. 8867 of 2022. Their Patna High Court CWJC No.12876 of 2017 dt.12-05-2025

Lordships have time and again, reminded the High

Courts that they should not entertain petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective

remedy is available to the aggrieved person under

the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

interfere the notice issued under the SARFAESI Act

and, therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed as

devoid of merits. However, an observation is

made, directing the petitioners to avail the

alternative remedies before the appropriate forum.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

khushbu/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          15.05.2025
Transmission Date       N/A