Yes Bank Limited vs District Magistrate And District ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1945 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1945 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Yes Bank Limited vs District Magistrate And District ... on 9 February, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:7016]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2924/2026

Yes Bank Limited, Address- 4Th Floor, Anand Bhawan, Plot No.
307, Chowkri Haveli, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Its
Authorized Officer Nitesh Kumar Khandelwal.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       District Magistrate And District Collector, Udaipur.
2.       Zais   Agency,       Through          Proprietor      Rijwan    Mohammad
         Address 12, Mulla Talai, Tehsil Girwa Udaipur Rajasthan
         313001 And Plot No-124 Mini Truck Stand, Central Area,
         Udaipur Rajasthan 313004.
3.       Nisar Ahmad S/o Shri Ahmad Khan, Address 12, Behind
         Mahaveer       Kirana,        Mulla    Talai,     Tehsil   Girwa    Udaipur
         Rajasthan 313001.
4.       Smt Shakila Bano W/o Shri Nisar Ahmad, Address 12,
         Behind Mahaveer Kirana, Mulla Talai, Tehsil Girwa Udaipur
         Rajasthan 313001 And Plot No- 124 Mini Truck Stand,
         Central Area, Udaipur Rajasthan 313004.
5.       Rijwan Mohammed S/o Shri Nisar Ahmad, Address 12, 80
         Feet Road, Sajjan Nagar, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan-
         313001.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s)            :     -



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

09/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue

involved in this writ petition has been considered by a Coordinate

Bench in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. National Steel

Corporation & Ors - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4529/2019,

wherein following order was passed on 26.03.2019:-

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:52:32 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7016] (2 of 3) [CW-2924/2026]

"1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :-

"a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus filed by the petitioner Bank may kindly be allowed.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.5 District Collector - cum - District Magistrate, Bikaner may kindly be directed to adhere to the provisions of Section 14 provided by the Amendment Act 2016 and pass an appropriate order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in relation to the misc. case (Section 14 of SARFAESI Act)No.139/2018 titled as "ICICI Bank Limited Vs.M/s.

National Stell Corporation & Ors." with immediate effect."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the petitioner-Bank moved an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 before the respondent No.5 District Collector, Bikaner on 23.10.2018, and while giving out the details of immovable property mortgaged by the respondents- borrowers with the petitioner-Bank, the petitioner- Bank requested that possession of the said mortgaged property may be taken from the respondents borrowers and be handed over to the petitioner-Bank or its' duly authorized representative.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the mandate of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is required to assist secured creditor in taking the possession of the secured asset. However, as a specific mandate incorporated in Section 14 of the Act of 2002 by way of amendment, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2016, the authority is required to pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days, and if some reasonable cause of delay arises, then at most within 60 days.

4. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as amended, and came into effect on 1st September,2016 reads as follows :-

"12. In the principal Act, in section 14, in sub- section (1), --

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:52:32 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7016] (3 of 3) [CW-2924/2026]

(i) in the second proviso, after the words"secured assets", the words "within a period of thirty days from the date of application"shall be inserted;

(ii) after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:--"Provided further that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days."

5. In light of the aforesaid submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.5 to pass the necessary orders on the application of the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within a period of 30 days from today strictly in accordance with law. Stay petition No.4409/2019 also stands disposed of accordingly."

2. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is

disposed of with a direction to learned District Magistrate, Udaipur,

Rajasthan to pass necessary orders on the application of the

petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, strictly in

accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

3. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 39-divya/-

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:52:32 PM)