Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Chetak Plus Industries vs State Bank Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:48165) on 10 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:48165]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21608/2025
1. M/s Chetak Plus Industries, Proprietor And Guarantor
Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma Age
65, Araji No. 10/292, Bavdi Khera, Sudri- Rashmi Road,
Near Model School, Gram Amarpura, Tehsil Gangrar, Distt
Chittorgarh Raj.
2. Sh. Subhas Sharma S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma
(Guarantor), Aged About 49 Years, Araji No.10/292, Bavdi
Khera, Sudri- Rashmi Road, Near, Model School, Gram
Amarpura, Tehsil Gangrar, Distt, Chittorgarh Raj.
3. Sh. Rajendra Sharma S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma
(Guarantor), Aged About 40 Years, Araji No.10/292, Bavdi
Khera, Sudri- Rashmi Road, Near, Model School, Gram
Amarpura, Tehsil Gangrar, Distt, Chittorgarh Raj.
4. Sh. Narendra Sharma S/o Late Mohan Lal Sharma
(Guarantor), Aged About 45 Years, Araji No.10/292, Bavdi
Khera, Sudri- Rashmi Road, Near, Model School, Gram
Amarpura, Tehsil Gangrar, Distt, Chittorgarh Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch
3Rd Floor, Matrix Mall, Sector-4 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
Raj.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch, Meera
Market, Chittorgarh Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Rathore.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
10/11/2025
1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent-Bank
had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT'), Jaipur
seeking possession of the secured property and the petitioners
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:28:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48165] (2 of 3) [CW-21608/2025]
have also filed reply to the said application, however, during the
pendency of the application, respondent-Bank had issued notice to
the petitioners on 01.10.2025 (Annex.4) vide which, the secured
property would be e-auctioned on 11.11.2025 and thus, being
aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have preferred the present
writ petition.
2. In this context, reference may be had to judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v.
Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr., reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 435, decided on 17.04.2023, wherein it is observed
that although the powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are wide, they are to be exercised only in
extraordinary circumstances. In paragraph 13 of the said
judgment, it has been categorically held that High Courts should
refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in commercial
matters where a statute provides for an effective and efficacious
alternative remedy before a competent forum. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced hereunder:-
"13. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, we do
not wish to interfere with the impugned orders
passed. We may, however, reiterate the settled
position of law on the interference of the High Court
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
commercial matters, where an effective and
efficacious alternative forum has been constituted
through a statute. We are also constrained to take
judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts
continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a
regular supply of cases before this Court. One such
High Court is that of Punjab and Haryana."
3. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the instant matter.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:28:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48165] (3 of 3) [CW-21608/2025]
4. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the
petitioners are at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available
under the SARFAESI Act by approaching the Debt Recovery
Tribunal (DRT).
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
8-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:28:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
