Suman Sharma vs State Bank Of India And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 26 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suman Sharma vs State Bank Of India And Others on 8 January, 2026

CWP-19983-2022
          2022 (O&M )                                                            - 1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CWP
                                                 CWP-19983-2022 (O&M)

Suman Sharma
                                                                ....Petitioner
                                  Versus

State Bank of India and others
                                                            ...Respondents
                                                 Reserved on: 04.12.2025
                                                 Pronounced on: 08.01.2026
                                                 Uploaded on: 08.01.2026
             Whether only operative part of the judgment is
             pronounced or the full judgment is pronouned:     operative part/full judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
                               *****
Present: M Puneet Sharma,, Advocate, for the petitioner.
         Mr.

            Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

            Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate,
            and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate,
            for respondent No.3-SBI
                           No.3     Life.
                        *****

SHEEL NAGU, C.J.

1. This petition invoking the writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by

the widow (petitioner), (petitioner) who along with her late husband Sh. Rakesh Kumar, was

sanctioned loan of Rs.7.00 Lakhs in 2003, initially by the State Bank of India,

Hyderabad, which got merged in the State Bank of India on 01.04.2017.

2. The late husband of the petitioner suffered acute depression in

2016, whereafter the payment of EMIs became irregular irregular.. Thereafter, in 2019,

the late husband of the petitioner suffered a fall. Th This compelled the petitioner

to write a request letter dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure P P-4) to the respondent Nos.

                                     1 of 4

 CWP-19983-2022
          2022 (O&M )                                                     - 2-

1 and 2 that since the

the loan account is insured under the SBI Life Life-Super Super Suraksha

Housing Loan Coverage, the protective cover be provided. However, the loan

account was declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) showing outstanding dues of

Rs.3,85,754.12 as on 17.11.2022, in respect of which, notice u/s 13 (2) of

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') was issued vide

Annexure P-5.

5. In response u/s 13 (3) (A) of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner

revealed the physical and mental infirmity by citing health reasons of her

husband.. Respondent No.2-Bank No. Bank declined to extend the insurance cover on the

ground that the same is available only in case of death ooff the insured and not for

reasons of illness.

2.1. Thereafter, the respondent/Bank respondent took recourse by invoking Section

13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act by issuing possession notice on 26.07.2022

(Annexure P-17).

17).

2.2. Meanwhile, the bank issued letter dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-

P

14) informing that SBI Life Master Policy secured the loan in question for 15

years i.e. from 29.09.2004 to 29.09.2018 and since the policy has now expired,

the claim of insurance is declined.

3. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the

aforesaid order dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P P-14)

14) and possession notice dated

26.07.2022 (Annexure P-17) P 17) issued u/s 13 (4) along with notice u/s 13 (2)

(Annexure P-10)

10) of SARFAESI Act.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Bank, 2 Bank, by filing a reply, have primarily

taken a stand that husband of the petitioner expired on 12.12.2021 and since the

term of the policy expired on 29.09.2018 (prior to the death of petitioner's

2 of 4

CWP-19983-2022 2022 (O&M ) - 3-

husband), no benefit can accrue to the petitioner out of the insurance policy.

4.1. However, the Bank (respondent Nos.1 and 2) left this aspect to be

better explained by respondent No.3-Insurance No.3 Insurance Company.

4.2. Whereas, the stand of respondent No.3 Whereas, No.3-Insurance Company,, on

facts, was that the insurance cover was only for 15 years, which expired on

29.09.2018 and since the insurance cover did not exist on the date of death i.e. in

2021, respondent No.3 is not liable. Respondent No.3 has annexed the Master

Policy of Home Loan Insurance with the written statement.

5. However, the terms and conditions mentioned in the Master Policy

are not very clear and explicit so as to facilitate this Court to adjudicate the

present dispute, as to whether the petitioner and co co-borrower (her husband) are

entitled to the benefit of the insurance cover, which expired on 29.09.2018 or

not?

6. This Court, while taking cognizance of this matter on 18.01.2023,

had stayed dispossession of the petitioner from the mortgaged property (secured

asset). The said interim order is continuing till date.

7. Whether the insurance company-

company-respondent respondent No.3 was deficient in

the service to be rendered by it to the petitioner or not, is a question to be

decided by the appropriate and jurisdictional Distric Districtt Consumer Forum and

ought not to be dealt with while exercising the writ jurisdiction by this Court, Court

especially when the process of adjudication involve disputed questions of fact.

8. In view of above, this Court, while continuing the interim order

passed ed by this Court on 18.01.2023, extends liberty to the petitioner to approach

the jurisdiction District Consumer Forum or the State Consumer Forum, as the

case may be. If, If the jurisdictional District/State Consumer Forum is approached

3 of 4

CWP-19983-2022 2022 (O&M ) - 4-

within a period of 60 60 days from today, then the said complaint of the petitioner

shall be entertained and disposed of on its own merits without being dismissed

on limitation alone.

8.1. It is made clear that in case, case the petitioner does not approach the

jurisdictional District/State Consumer Forum orum within 60 days, then respondent

Nos. 1 and 2--Bank Bank shall be free to liquidate the secured asset and recover the

loan.

8.2. In case, the complaint is filed before the jurisdiction jurisdictional District/State

Consumer Forum by the petitioner petitioner within 60 days from today, then the interim

order passed by this Court on 18.01.2023 shall continue to operate till disposal

of the complaint.

8.3. This Court hastens to add that we have not rendered any finding on

merits of the claim of petitioner.

8.4. With the aforesaid observations, directions and liberty, this Court

disposes of this petition.

(SHEEL NAGU NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 08.01.2026 Ajay Prasher

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

4 of 4