Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hind Bakery (Principal Borrower), ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34745
1 WP-15032-2026
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. 15032 of 2026
HIND BAKERY (PRINCIPAL BORROWER), THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR SMT.RUBY KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Abhijit Awasthy - Additional Advocate General for respondents
No.1 and 2/State.
Shri S.M. Guru - Learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak With consent heard finally.
2. Present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"(i)- The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/2) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
(ii)- This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents, their officers, agents and servants to restrain them from dispossessing the Petitioners from the scheduled property pursuant to the impugned order and the notice dated 19.02.2026.Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 07-05-2026 16:10:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34745 2 WP-15032-2026
(iii)- Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper keeping in view of facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Petitioners are borrowers and respondent is creditor. Petitioners borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from respondent to run a business. However, due to Pandemic Covid -19 situation, business collapsed and even after making 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, therefore, result is proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 and respondent intends to auction the vacant land, which is mortgaged by petitioners.
4. 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.6,00,000/- 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.
5. 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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 07-05-2026 16:10:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34745 3 WP-15032-2026 suitable condition may be imposed.
6. Considering the rival submissions and peculiar fact situation, this petition stands disposed of with following directions:-
"(i). That petitioners shall deposit Rs.6,00,000/- 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 amount is not deposited within one month, then Bank shall be at liberty to proceed further against petitioners as per law.
(iii). If amount is deposited within one 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 application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 within one month from the date DRT becomes functional and this interim arrangement shall be applicable and effective for one month only from the date of starting of DRT, Jabalpur as functional. Thereafter, Bank shall be at liberty to proceed as per law and as per direction issue by DRT, if any.
(iv). 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."
7. With aforesaid expectation of early hearing of application filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
L.Raj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 07-05-2026
16:10:52