[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagat Singh vs Srg Housing Finance Limited ... on 4 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52381-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 511/2024
1. Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Jagat Singh Ji, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Chouhano Ka Bas, Beda, Tehsil-Bali, Dist. - Pali
(Raj.)
2. Jagat Singh S/o Shri Shiv Singh Ji, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Chouhano Ka Bas, Beda, Tehsil-Bali, Dist. - Pali
(Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
SRGW Housing Finance Limited, 321. S.m. Lodha Complex, Near
Shastri Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
04/12/2025
1. The present special appeal has been filed by the appellants
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on
15.03.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Court
should direct the respondent to restructure the loan account of the
appellants as the loan of the appellants could not be paid due to
Covid-19 pandemic and has wrongly been made as Non-
Performing Asset (NPA). Counsel further submits that he has filed
a writ petition for the said purpose but the learned Single Judge
has wrongly ousted him on the ground of availability of an
alternate remedy. It is a submission that the respondent as Non-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 11:15:16 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52381-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-511/2024]
Banking Finance Corporation (NBFC) is bound by the circulars
issued from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and
the notice issued to the appellants for repayment of the loan
under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was illegal and unjustified.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the respondent is a private housing finance company
and that a writ would not be maintainable against it. Counsel
further submits that the RBI circulars have no application to the
cases where housing loan has been accepted. The issues raised
before this Court and the learned Single Judge are not required to
be examined in writ jurisdiction.
4. We notice that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "M/s
South Indian Bank Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip" 1 which reiterated
the law as laid down in "State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew
K.C."2 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the High
Courts ought not to entertain writ petitions relating to the actions
being taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as there is alternate
efficacious remedy available by filing an application/appeal before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The said view taken in the case
of State Bank of Travancore (supra) was reiterated in M/s South
Indian Bank (supra) as well as "Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. Vishwa
Bharati Vidya Mandir"3 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. This Court, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this
appeal, however, we leave it open for the appellants to raise their
grievances before the concerned DRT which shall examine all the
1 (2023) SCC OnLine 435
2 (2018) 3 SCC 85
3 (2022) 5 SCC 345
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 11:15:16 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52381-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-511/2024]
issues raised by the appellants as well as the respondent and pass
appropriate orders. This Court also makes it clear that if any
grievance remains with any of the parties, there is always a
remedy available by way of appeal before the DRT and it would
not lie even thereafter.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the present special appeal is
dismissed. It is further made clear that if an application/appeal is
filed before the DRT within one month, the issue regarding
limitation shall stand condoned and the same shall be decided on
merits expeditiously.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
126-Arjun/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 11:15:16 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
