Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Suhalka vs Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:28881]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10321/2025
Manish Suhalka S/o Shri Himmat Lal Ji Suhalka, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 13 Gali No. 3, Santosh Nagar, Gariyawas, Girwa
Temple, District - Udaipur (Raj.) - 313001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Through Its
Authorized Representative, Having Registered Office At
Unit No. 203 And 204, 2Nd Floor, A Wing Navbharat
Estate, Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri (West), Mumbai -
400015, Maharashtra.
2. Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Through Its
Branch Manager, Having Its Branch Office At Manglam
Apartment, Durga Nursery Road, District - Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salman Agha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Mehta
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/07/2025
1. This Court had entertained the petition and granted an
interim order on 27.05.2025 on the basis of statement of learned
counsel for the petitioner that out of the total outstanding amount
of Rs. 24 lakhs, the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.16
lakhs and yet the respondent-Bank had taken possession of the
petitioner's secured assets. Further because the petitioner had
showed his readiness to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.4
lakhs within a period of 15 days from that date.
2. Mr. Arpit Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submitted that the statement given by the learned counsel for the
(D.B. SAW/829/2025 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2025:RJ-JD:28881] (2 of 4) [CW-10321/2025]
petitioner on 27.05.2025 was factually incorrect inasmuch as Rs.
24 lakhs was the amount of loan and not the total outstanding
amount as on the date of passing the interim order. He prayed
that the petition be dismissed on the ground of petitioner's
conduct.
3. Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other
hand submitted that on perusal of the order dated 27.05.2025,
learned counsel/petitioner realised his mistake and moved an
application immediately on 30.05.2025 seeking modification of the
order and therefore, it cannot be held that there was a
misstatement of fact.
4. Considering that immediately after two days of passing of
the interim order (27.05.2025), the petitioner has moved an
application seeking modification of the order, this Court has every
reason to believe that there was no concerted attempt on the part
of the counsel to mislead the Court - may be there was a bonafide
misunderstanding or communication gap.
5. Be that as it may. As of today, a total sum of Rs.37 lakhs is
due to the Bank, which the petitioner is supposed to deposit and
therefore, the interim order dated 27.05.2025 passed by this
Court under misconception deserves to be vacated, which is
hereby vacated.
6. At this juncture, Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner
raised various arguments regarding the manner in which the
proceedings were undertaken, including that no notice was served
upon the petitioner under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act,
(D.B. SAW/829/2025 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2025:RJ-JD:28881] (3 of 4) [CW-10321/2025]
2002') and that the respondent-Bank had not undertaken the
proceedings as mandated under the law to contend that
proceedings of taking over the possession is clearly illegal.
7. According to this Court, whether the notice under section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served or due process was
followed, are disputed questions of fact and the same can be
addressed only by way of an application/appeal under section 17
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court time and again has been
cautioning the High Court not to entertain the writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A gainful reference of
judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of United
Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors : Civil Appeal
No.5990 of 2010, decided on 26.07.2010, reported in 2010 (8)
SCC 110 and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank
& Ors. : Civil Appeal No.4845 of 2024, decided on 10.04.2024,
reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 may be made for ready reference.
9. Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to draw a
distinction by pointing out the observations made by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court by reading para No.29 of the judgment in the case
of PHR Invent Educational Society (supra) and contended that
since the authorities have not acted in accordance with the
provisions of the enactment, even as per the judgment rendered
in PHR Invent Educational Society (supra), the writ petition is
maintainable.
10. According to this Court, para No.29 is only reiteration of the
principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
(D.B. SAW/829/2025 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2025:RJ-JD:28881] (4 of 4) [CW-10321/2025]
Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal,
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603. So far as ultimate conclusion drawn
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent
Educational Society (supra) is concerned, the same is
encapsulated in para No.31 onwards and accordingly, there is no
doubt about the settled legal position that a writ petition is not
maintainable in the matters relating to proceedings under the Act
of 2002.
11. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed while giving the
petitioner a liberty to avail his remedies under section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002.
12. All interlocutory applications including stay application stand
disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
463-raksha/-
(D.B. SAW/829/2025 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
