Jharkhand High Court
Maa Lalita Hospital And Research Centre ... vs The Authorized Officer on 25 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:8512-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 145 of 2026
1. Maa Lalita Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited,
situated at Bawan Bigha, Deoghar, through its Managing Director
Shivdutta Sharma, aged about 56 years, son of Sri Jwala Prasad Singh,
resident of Amardham Lane Castair Town, Bawan Bigha, P.O., P.S.
and District-Deoghar, Jharkhand PIN-834112.
2. Smt. Sabina Kumari, aged about 54 Years, wife of Sri Shivdutta
Sharma, resident of Amardham Lane, Castair Town, Bawan Bigha,
P.O., P.S. and District-Deoghar, Jharkhand PIN-834112
...Appellants
Versus
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank (Allahabad) SAM Branch, Ranchi,
having its office at Paras Complex, Third Floor, Lalpur Chowk, Circular
Road, P.O and P.S.-Lalpur, Town and District- Ranchi
....Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate. For the Resp.-Bank : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate.
Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate.
Ms. Pragunee Kashyap, Advocate.
---------
02/Dated: 25.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 5th February 2026 disposing of W.P. (C) No. 6720 of 2025.
3. In W.P. (C) No. 6720 of 2025, the appellants/petitioners have challenged the impugned notice dated 10.07.2025 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act).
4. There are several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be entertained against measures under the SARFAESI Act. This is more so because the parties have an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 1
2026:JHHC:8512-DB
5. However, the learned Single Judge was persuaded to entertain the petition because, at the time of the petition's institution, the DRT was not functioning. Today, the DRT is functioning, and Mr. Gadodia, the learned counsel for the appellants, states that though he has no clear instructions, it appears that an SA has already been filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi.
6. However, Mr. Gadodia submitted that the impugned order dated 5th February 2026 appears to have recorded a firm finding on the issue of limitation, which, he apprehends, would come in the way of the appellants before the D.R.T. He submitted that under such circumstances, a remedy before the D.R.T. would be rendered less efficacious.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank pointed out that the finding on limitation was only in the context of the interim relief sought by the appellants. This is clear from paragraph 16 of the impugned order. Further, she pointed out that in paragraph 18 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge clarified that any observation in the order will not affect the party in the pending proceedings before the D.R.T. or any other authority under the law. In any event, she submitted that proceedings initiated by the Bank were well within the prescribed period of limitation.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the issue of limitation was answered by the learned Single Judge only in the context of the prayer for interim relief. Therefore, the observation on limitation can, at the highest, be regarded as a prima facie observation. Besides, this position is clarified by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 of the impugned order dated 5th February, 2026, in which the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:-
2
2026:JHHC:8512-DB "18. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein will not affect the party in the pending proceeding either before the D.R.T. or before any other authority under the law."
9. Accordingly, we relegate the appellants to resort to or continue with the proceedings before the D.R.T., i.e. SA No. 5 of 2026, which appears to have already been instituted by the appellants before the D.R.T.
10. Once again, we clarify that the observations in the impugned order, including the observations on the issue of limitation, being prima facie, would not affect any of the parties, and the D.R.T. would have to decide all these issues on their own merits without being influenced by such observations.
11. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is disposed of.
12. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 25.03.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/AMAR Uploaded on 01.04.2026 3