Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S. Divine Institute Of ... vs Pegasus Asset Reconstruction ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2045 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2045 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
M/S. Divine Institute Of ... vs Pegasus Asset Reconstruction ... on 24 February, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2171/2021

1.     M/s. Divine Institute Of Information Technology, Address
       22, Ganesh Nagar, First, Muralipura Scheme, Jaipur,
       (Rajasthan) - 302013 Through Proprietor.
                                                          ---Petitioner/Borrower
2.     Shri Arjun Yadav Son Of Shri Ram Chandra Yadav, R/o 1,
       Rajeev Nagar, Sector-3, Madanbari, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
       Jaipur - 302023 (Raj.)
3.     Smt. Godi Devi Yadav D/o Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, R/o
       Plot No. 1, Rajeev Nagar, Nayakhera, Ambabari, Jaipur-
       302013 (Rajasthan).
4.     Shri Ram Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Balu Ram Yadav, R/o
       Plot No. 1, Rajeev Nagar, Nayakhera, Ambabari, Jaipur-
       302013 (Rajasthan).
                                                ----Petitioners/Co-Borrowers
                                     Versus
Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Through Authorized
Signatory Shri Ramakant Pandey Corporate Office 55-56, 5Th
Floor, Free Press House, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021,
Registered Office 507, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai -
400021 And Branch Office, Unit No. 106, Best Business Park,
Plot No. P-2, Netaji Subhash Palace, Opposite Fun Cinema,
Peetampura, New Delhi- 110034.
                                      ----Non Petitioner/Secured Creditor


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr.R.P. Garg, Adv.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                      Order

24/02/2021

          The present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner-borrower     challenging          the    order         dated   03.12.2020

passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.




                      (Downloaded on 25/02/2021 at 10:23:22 PM)
                                          (2 of 3)               [CW-2171/2021]



           Learned counsel submitted that the basic ingredient of

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not fulfilled in the

present case and yet application filed under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been allowed.

           Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as

per requirement of sub-Section (3A) of Section 13, the notice

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is required to be

served on the borrower and he has to be given the right of making

the representation or raise its objection.

           Learned counsel submitted that even the application

which was filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 did

not make any averment as whether the petitioners were served

notice under Section 13(2) or not.

           Learned counsel submitted that, even the description of

the property which was given, not matching with the property

which was kept as a mortgaged property.

           Learned counsel submitted that there is whole some

breach of principles of natural justice and in most arbitrary

manner, the impugned order dated 03.12.2020 has been passed.

           Learned counsel submitted that at one point of time,

even the petitioners were prepared to pay the installments after

reducing the amount as originally agreed between the parties and

the petitioners offered some amount but the same was not

accepted by the system of the Bank due to technical reason.

           Learned counsel further submitted that only on account

of such non-payment of two installments, accounts of the

petitioners were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and

accordingly, the respondents have undertaken the illegal exercise

invoking the power given under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(3 of 3) [CW-2171/2021]

This Court is afraid to accept submissions made by

learned counsel for the petitioners that the order under Section 14

of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be interfered by this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case

of C. Bright Vs. The District Collector and Ors. (Civil Appeal

No.3441/2020) decided on 05.11.2020 has recently again

reiterated the principle that the High Courts should not entertain

the writ petition where the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,

2002 are challenged.

This Court in view of the judgment passed by the Apex

Court in the case of C. Bright Vs. The District Collector and Ors.

(supra) is not inclined to accept the present writ petition and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

However, the petitioners have other remedy under the

law and they are always free to avail the same.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/Sakshi/23

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter