Sikkim High Court
Meena Jha vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 6 November, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
WA No. 03/2025
MEENA JHA
APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT (S)
For Appellant : Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha and
Ms. Pema Dechen Bhutia, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. J. K. Chandak, Advocate.
No. 1 and 2.
For Respondents : None.
No. 3 to 5
For Respondents : Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate
No. 6 and 7 with Ms. Pema Bhutia, Assistant Government
Advocate.
Date: 06/11/2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
O R D E R:
(per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
This is an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, arising in respect of a judgment
and order passed by a learned Single Judge on 14th August, 2025, in WP(C)
No.13 of 2020 (Meena Jha vs. State Bank of India and Others).
By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded
to dismiss the writ petition with the following observations:-
"23. Unlike the facts in IDBI Bank Limited vs. Ramswaroop Daliya
[(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2878] referred to by the petitioner the facts
of the present case is different. It is not a case where the petitioner
having paid the 25% of the sale price in terms of Rule 9(3) of the SI
Rules the respondents had not accepted the balance auction money.
This is a case where there is complete and absolute failure on the
part of the petitioner to pay any amount of the sale price whatsoever
although having been declared the successful bidder on 13.10.2011.
24. The conflicting pleas made in the writ petition coupled with the
petitioner's conduct during the period between the auction and now
questions her bonafides. The petitioner has made conflicting pleas
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
regarding payments made by her without substantiating the same by
documentary evidence. These pleas have been disputed by the
respondent no.1. There are serious disputed questions of facts which
arise due to the inconsistent pleadings of the parties which is difficult
to be gone into in writ jurisdiction. Although admittedly the petitioner
has not made payment of the deposit of 25% of the sale price or the
balance of the sale price it is noticed that in the writ petition filed
before the Guwahati High Court the petitioner has stated that "..... on
12.12.2011, the petitioner made the entire payment of the remaining
sale amount in respect of purchase of the aforesaid property and
pursuant thereto, the respondent no.2 issued a sale certificate dated
03.01.2012 wherein, it was certified that the property has been sold
out to the petitioner vide auction held on 13.10.2011 and the
petitioner was held to be the owner of the property w.e.f.
13.10.2011." The above statements are factually false and incorrect.
When the petitioner indulges on falsehood for her cause the writ
court would also hesitate to exercise its discretionary powers in
favour of the petitioner.
25. Furthermore, the petitioner would fall within the expression
"any person" as specified under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act
and hence was entitled to challenge the action of the respondent no.1
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an appropriate
application. The petitioner has not availed this alternative efficacious
remedy. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground as
well.
26. The writ petition is therefore dismissed along with the interim
application."
The moot question which was formulated by the learned Single Judge which
led to the conclusion as reproduced hereinabove, will appear from paragraph 1 of
the impugned judgment and order, which reads as follows;
"1. The question that falls for determination is whether the writ
petition filed in the year 2020 by the auction purchaser who had
participated in an auction sale of the immovable property of the
secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the
SARFAESI Act) in the year 2011 but failed to pay the deposit of 25%
of the sale price as required under Rule 9(3) or pay the balance
within the time frame under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (the SI Rules), should be allowed?"
A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order in its entirety clearly
reveals no palpable infirmities or perversities which would warrant an
interference by this Court in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. In fact, the
impugned judgment and order has been delivered with cogent and justifiable
reasons.
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
In such circumstances, we are left with no option but to dismiss the appeal.
The same stands accordingly dismissed along with the interlocutory application
connected thereto.
(Meenakshi Madan Rai) (Biswanath Somadder)
Judge Chief Justice
jk/ds/avi/ami
