[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Chaudhary vs Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13312]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6007/2026
1. Rajendra Chaudhary S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Village Salwa Kallan, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Bebi Devi W/o Rajendra Chaudhary, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Village Salwa Kallan, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited, (Formerly
Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited), 6-A, 1St
Floor, Opp. Police Line Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur-342012.
2. Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited, Branch
Office Kesar Mall, 1St Floor, Plot No.115A, Opposite
Apexmall, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015.
3. Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited, Registered
Office 3Rd Floor, No.307, Megh Tower, P.h. Road,
Madhuravoyal, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
4. Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited, Corporate
Office 5 And 6, B Wing, Supreme Business Park, Supreme
City, Powai, Mumbai-400076.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
19/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following
reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this petition for writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be
allowed and by an appropriate writ, order and direction;
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13312] (2 of 6) [CW-6007/2026]
I. Order dated 05.03.2026 (Anxx-9) passed by the learned
tribunal may kindly be quashed and set aside.
II. And the application filed by the Petitioners may kindly be
allowed as Prayed.
III. Direct the respondents to conduct any further proceedings
strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
IV. Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
V. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be allowed in favour of
the petitioner."
2. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the present writ
petition are that the petitioners had availed housing loan facilities
from the respondent financial institution for purchase of a
residential property situated at Plot No. 55, Khasra No. 82/2,
Gram Nandri, District Jodhpur, which was mortgaged as a secured
asset. On account of default in repayment, the loan account was
classified as non-performing asset and demand notice dated
29.06.2024 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'
only) was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 34,01,507/- along
with interest and charges.
3. Subsequently, measures under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act were taken and sale proceedings were initiated.
Earlier, a sale notice dated 08.07.2025 was challenged by the
petitioners herein before this Court, whereupon the petitioners
were relegated to avail the alternative remedy before the DRT.
4. The petitioners thereafter filed Securitisation Application No.
623/2025 before the DRT. During the pendency of the said
proceedings, an auction notice dated 18.11.2025 was issued,
which came to be set aside by the DRT by order dated
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13312] (3 of 6) [CW-6007/2026]
06.01.2026. Thereafter, the respondent issued a fresh sale notice
dated 06.02.2026 fixing the auction of the mortgaged property on
05.03.2026. The petitioner again approached the DRT by filing an
interim application, which came to be disposed of by order dated
05.03.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned sale notice dated 06.02.2026 is wholly illegal and
contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is contended that the said notice
does not disclose essential particulars such as the time and place
of auction and the complete terms and conditions governing the
auction process, thereby rendering the proceedings vitiated.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have
failed to conduct a fresh valuation of the secured asset through an
approved valuer before fixing the reserve price, and the reserve
price of Rs.44,20,000/- is much lower than the prevailing market
value. It is contended that such arbitrary determination defeats
the very purpose of obtaining the best possible price.
7. The petitioner had approached the respondents with a bona
fide intention to settle the loan account and had sought
reasonable time as well as permission to effect a private sale of
the property, however, the said request was turned down by the
bank without any reason. It is further contended that the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, while passing the order dated 05.03.2026, has
failed to consider the submissions made by the petitioner and has
passed a non-speaking and erroneous order.
8. Lastly, it was submitted that the property in question is the
only residential house of the petitioners and their family, and
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13312] (4 of 6) [CW-6007/2026]
therefore, irreparable loss would be caused if the auction
proceedings are allowed to continue. In view of the patent
illegality in the action of the respondents, it is prayed that the
present writ petition be allowed and the impugned order and sale
notice be quashed and set aside.
9. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the
availability of pendency of the Securitisation Application before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal. It was further submitted that the order
dated 05.03.2026 passed by the DRT is an order on an interim
application and does not finally adjudicate the rights of the
parties, and therefore, no interference is called for at this stage.
The petitioners are defaulters as they failed to repay the
outstanding dues despite sufficient opportunities. The secured
creditor has proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions of
the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
10. It was thus submitted that the present writ petition has been
filed only with an intent to delay the recovery process and
therefore the same deserves to dismissed.
11. Heard.
12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and after perusing the material as made
available on record, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner
has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which has already been invoked
by filing Securitisation Application No. 623/2025 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The impugned order dated 05.03.2026
passed by the DRT relates to an interim application filed by the
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13312] (5 of 6) [CW-6007/2026]
petitioner and does not constitute a final adjudication on the rights
of the parties. It is settled law that interim orders, especially those
passed in the course of proceedings before a specialized tribunal,
are ordinarily not susceptible to interference by this Court unless
there is a clear demonstration of patent illegality, arbitrariness, or
violation of principles of natural justice.
13. It is noted that the petitioner has primarily challenged the
sale notice dated 06.02.2026, alleging procedural irregularities
such as non-disclosure of essential particulars regarding the
auction, non-conduct of a fresh valuation, and arbitrary fixation of
the reserve price. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
appropriate forum to raise such objections is before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal itself. The Tribunal, being a statutory body with
specialized jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act, is best place to
examine the objections regarding valuation, terms of sale, and
compliance with statutory requirements, and to pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law. Any interference by this Court in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, at this stage, would not be warranted
when the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy and
the matter remains sub judice before the Tribunal.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is of the view that no exceptional circumstance exists which
would justify interference with the interim order passed by the
DRT. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding auction
proceedings, valuation, and reserve price are matters that can be
effectively and appropriately considered by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, which is equipped with the necessary expertise to
adjudicate disputes arising under the SARFAESI Act.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13312] (6 of 6) [CW-6007/2026]
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending
applications also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
16. The petitioners are liberty to pursue the remedies available
under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and
the respondents are directed to proceed with the matter strictly in
accordance with law and in compliance with the provisions of the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
30-Dinesh/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:45:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
