Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Mehta vs Canara Bank (2025:Rj-Jd:50442) on 21 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50442]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22895/2025
Mukesh Mehta S/o late Gyanchand Mehta, aged about 43 years,
Resident Of 57, Sojatiya Bass, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Canara Bank, Branch Pali, through its Authorized Officer.
2. Canara Bank, Branch Pali, through its Chief Manager.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
21/11/2025
1. Heard.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
while laying a challenge to the E-auction sale notice dated
29.10.2025 (Annex.7) issued by the respondent-Bank under the
provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act of 2002) and
seeking a direction to the respondents for not taking any coercive
action against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
petitioner's father availed loan from the respondent Bank and the
loan amount could not be repaid and thereafter the respondent
Bank had issued the E-auction Sale notice dated 29.10.2025
(Annex.7) for auctioning the secured property of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
willing and ready to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount and
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:12:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50442] (2 of 3) [CW-22895/2025]
prayed that this Court may grant protection to the petitioner
restraining the respondents to proceed with e-auction of the
secured property.
4. However, this Court finds that under the SARFAESI Act, the
petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative remedy
available. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any
indulgence in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. 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"
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the matter.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:12:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50442] (3 of 3) [CW-22895/2025]
7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available
under the Act of 2002 by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Stay Petition also stands dismissed.
8. However, in the interest of justice, in case the petitioner
takes appropriate recourse under the relevant provisions within a
period of ten days from today, the respondents shall not take any
coercive action against the petitioner till the period of ten days
from today.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
197-DJ/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 06:12:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
