Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aniket Jain vs Branch Manager on 4 May, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34721
1 WP-14944-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14944 of 2026
ANIKET JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER
Appearance:
Shri Manish Mishra -learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.M. Guru - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak With consent, heard finally.
Present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"(a) It is, therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue in the nature of certiorari quash the sale notice dated 26.03.2026 and demand notice dated 26.08.2025 and auction of the mortgaged property, in the interest of justice.
(b) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue in the nature of certiorari to call the record of the bank under SARFSAE Act and after examine be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of the bank Under SARFASAE Act, in the interest of justice.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue in the nature of certiorari to restrain the defendant bank to disposes from the property/land of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 05-05-2026 15:34:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34721
2 WP-14944-2026 petitioner No.2.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case."
2. Petitioners are the borrowers and respondent is a creditor. Petitioners borrowed Rs.21,11.931/- from respondent to run a business. However, due to Pandemic Covid -19 situation, business collapsed and even after paying certain installments, they could not repay the loan amount, therefore, proceedings under Sections 13/14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act, 2002") ensued. Resultantly, respondent intends to auction the vacant land, which is mortgaged by petitioners.
3. Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 is being preferred before DRT, Jabalpur, after proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is culminated. However, DRT, Jabalpur being not functional, it rendered the petitioners in a vulnerable position. Apparently they are remediless. Counsel for the petitioners further informs this Court that the petitioners are ready to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- as an interim arrangement to show their bonafides and meanwhile, their prayer for status quo be considered till DRT, Jabalpur, becomes functional. Thereafter, they may press the application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 before the said forum. They are ready to settle down the defaulted account, if bank is ready to accommodate them.
4. Counsel for the respondent fairly submits that if the petitioners come out with a viable and workable settlement/proposal, then bank will certainly look into it. It is further submitted that since it was a vacant land, therefore, suitable condition may be imposed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 05-05-2026 15:34:51NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34721 3 WP-14944-2026
5. Considering the rival submissions and peculiar fact situation, this petition stands disposed of with following directions:-
(i). That petitioners shall deposit Rs.7,00,000/- within one month with respondent -AU Small Finance Bank.
(ii). If amount is deposited within one month, then respondent shall not proceed for auction. However, if the amount is not deposited within a month, then bank shall be at liberty to proceed further against petitioners as per law.
(iii). If the said amount is deposited within a month, then respondent shall permit the petitioners to hold the land and auction proceedings shall not be initiated. However, once DRT, Jabalpur becomes functional, then petitioners shall have to press an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 within a month from the date DRT becomes functional and this interim arrangement shall be applicable and effective for one month only from the date DRT, Jabalpur becomes functional. Thereafter, bank shall be at liberty to proceed as per the law and directions issued by DRT, if any.
(iv). The bank is at liberty to consider the proposal for settlement offered by petitioners as per law and their relevant policy.
(v) This order is passed in peculiar fact situation and is only a transient arrangement. It does not raise any equity in forum of borrower.
6. With aforesaid expectation of early hearing of application filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 by DRT, Jabalpur, petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 05-05-2026
15:34:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34721
4 WP-14944-2026
skt
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 05-05-2026
15:34:51