Surendar Singh v. The Chief Manager -cum
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 0101. This matter taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Surendar Singh with the following prayers:- i) admit the writ petition; ii)…
Judgment
Mr. Sunil Kumar Swain, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 15.10.2025
This matter taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Surendar Singh with the following prayers:-
i) admit the writ petition; ii) Quash the notice vide dated 28.07.2025 and dated 04.08.2005 issued by the opp. party no.1 under annexures-8 & 9, by concurrently holding the same, is bad, illegal, and cannot be sustainable in the eyes of the law; iii) to direct the opposite parties, more particularly the opp. party no.1 to reduce the EMI of the loan account to below Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.64,810/-, under Annexure-3 of the petitioner’s proposal for reconstruction or rescheduling of his account; iv) and pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Mr.
Swain, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank raised preliminary objection alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the action of the opposite parties and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. In case of PHR Invent Educational Society -Vrs.- UCO Bank and others reported in (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 579 so also in the case of CELIR LLP -Vrs.- Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1, it has been held that the High Court should not entertain the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In the case of Bafna Motors (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: registration of “110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset.
In other words, the borrower’s right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the auction-sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour of the auction- the sale purchaser, by certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction- purchaser.” After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into account the ratio laid down in the case of Bafna Motors (supra), we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Operative part
However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the DRT under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. If such an approach is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) RKM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 15:17:05
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.