[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tyger Home Finance Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:1371) on 12 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:1371]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 430/2026
Tyger Home Finance Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorised Officer-
Cum-Signatory Mohit Singh Rathore S/o Rajendra Singh Rathore,
Aged About 32 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Adani
House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Gujarat (380009) And One
Among Branch Office 1St Floor Mahadev Tower Plot 47, Opp New
Kohinoor Cinema Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (342001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Of
Department Of Home, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Phalodi, Rajasthan.
3. The Station House Officer, Ps Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
4. Madan Lal S/o Laxman Ram, Resident Of Nauto Ka Bas
Mokheri Phalodi, Jodhpur, (Rajasthan) - 342301.
5. Lata Madan Lal, Resident Of Nauto Ka Bas Mokheri
Phalodi, Jodhpur, (Rajasthan) - 342301.
6. Hiro Laxmanram, Resident Of Nauto Ka Bas Mokheri
Phalodi, Jodhpur, (Rajasthan) - 342301.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
12/01/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy raised in the present writ petition is no more res
integra in view of the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10092/2025 (HDFC
Bank Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) decided on
05.08.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms as HDFC
Bank Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors (supra). The
order passed in the said writ petition is reproduced herein below:-
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 06:36:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1371] (2 of 5) [CW-430/2026]
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"A. Issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus
for directing the Respondent no. 2 "Ld. District
Collector, Chittorgarh" to forthwith and or/and
within such time as this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper to render necessary
assistance with the aid and assistance of
Respondent no.3 to 4 for restoration of the
secured asset to HDFC Bank Ltd. (Petitioner
Bank) in terms of the order dated 26/09/2017
(Annexure-4) passed under section 14 of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002; and/or
B. Issue an appropriate Writ or order to declare
that the Respondent nos. 5 to 7 have violated
the mandate of SARFAESI Act, 2002 thereby
forcefully and unlawfully
divesting/dispossessing the Petitioner Bank
from secured asset and further declare the
Respondent no. 3 need to honor the order
dated 26/09/2017 passed by the Respondent
no.2, under section 14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
and/or
C. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus
thereby directing the Respondent no. 3 and 4
to consider the Complaint dated- 13/12/2024 &
19/12/2024 (Annex+9 preferred by Petitioner
Bank and register an FIR against the
respondent borrowers, who have illegally
dispossessed the Petitioner Bank from the
Secured asset and has tried to overreach the
law as well as the orders passed by judicial
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 06:36:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1371] (3 of 5) [CW-430/2026]
authorities, which has to be nipped in the bud
right away, lest the rule of law shall suffer;
and/or
D. By an appropriate writ(s), order(s), or
direction(s) impose the cost against the
respondent borrowers as well as state
instrumentalities for inaction and the said cost
may be directed to be given to the petitioner-
Bank;"
Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a financial institution
and it had granted loan in favour of the respondent No.5-
M/s. Annu Transport-borrower and respondent No.6-
Gajanand Sharma- co-borrower and the respondent No.7
was the guarantor. Since, the loan amount was not repaid by
the respondent No.5 & 6, therefore, it was declared as NPA
and proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interests Act,
2002 (for short, Act of 2002') were undertaken by the
petitioner Bank. In pursuance of the proceedings undertaken
by the petitioner under the Act of 2002, possession of the
mortgaged property was taken over by the petitioner Bank.
After the petitioner had taken over the possession, the
respondent No.6 broke the locks of the property and forcibly
entered into it. In the circumstances, the petitioner being a
financial institution approached the District Collector,
Chittorgarh and Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh for
restoring the possession of the mortgaged property to it but
till date, no action has been taken by them.
It is also contended that despite ample opportunities
having been granted to the respondents Nos.5 and 6, the
amount due to the petitioner has not been paid till date and
further, in defiance of rule of law, the respondent No.6 has
also forcibly taken over possession of the mortgaged
property. Learned counsel in these circumstances submits
that the authorities i.e. the District Collector, Chittorgarh and
the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh may be directed to
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 06:36:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1371] (4 of 5) [CW-430/2026]
protect interest of the petitioner as it is a clear case of a
situation of lawlessness at the hands of respondent No.6.
He, therefore, prays that the official respondents may be
directed to act upon the representations/applications filed by
the petitioner for securing possession of the property
mortgaged to it.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case.
The facts narrated above clearly show that the
respondents No.5 and 6 had taken loan from the petitioner
and in the process, they had mortgaged their property for
securing the loan amount. It is also clear that the
respondent No.5 & 6 had not repaid the loan amount,
therefore, the proceedings under the Act of 2002 were
initiated against them. The proceedings aforesaid culminated
into issuance of possession notice by the petitioner bank for
securing the loan amount. After the petitioner having taken
over possession of the mortgaged property of the
respondent No.5 & 6, the respondent No.6 has forcibly taken
over possession of the mortgaged property and has been
enjoying the same without any repayment of the loan
amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved
by the aforementioned circumstances, approached the
respondent Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh and the
District Collector, Chittorgarh by way of filing appropriate
representations as per the Rules for securing possession of
the mortgaged property.
It is submitted that till date, the possession of
mortgaged property has not been restored to the petitioner
bank. If the petitioner is not allowed to take possession of
the mortgaged property back, it will amount to a clear case
of defiance of rule of law and therefore, the respondents
Nos.2 and 3 are under an obligation to act in consonance
with the provisions of law for restoring possession of the
petitioner in the circumstances when the petitioner has
already approached them.
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 06:36:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1371] (5 of 5) [CW-430/2026]
In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition
merits acceptance and therefore, the same is allowed. The
respondent No.2 District Collector, Chittorgarh and the
respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh are
directed to act immediately for restoring possession of the
mortgaged property to the bank in accordance with law.
The entire exercise shall be carried out by the
respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order."
3. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms as was decided in the case of
HDFC Bank Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors (supra).
The respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Phalodi, Rajasthan
is directed to act immediately for restoring possession of the
mortgaged property to the bank in accordance with law.
4. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
46-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 06:36:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
