Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010204492025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5565/2025 SABEENA CHOWDHARY W/O- LATE SIDDHARTHA DULAL GOSWAMI, R/O- FLAT NO. 305, SILVER ARCH APARTMENTS, 22, FIROZESHAH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR SASHTRA, OPP- NEMCARE HOSPITAL, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781005. 2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK SASHTRA OPP. NEMCARE HOSPITAL G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM-781005 For the petitioner : Mr. I.S. Mazumdar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. A. Pervez, Advocate Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 25-09-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. I.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Pervez, learned counsel for the respondents/Bank. This is an application of a widow whose husband and her two sons are the heirs of the owner of the pledged property. The property which has been pledged actually belongs to the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who does not survive as on date. The loan taken on that property by a relative of the petitioner went bad and a proceeding under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 was initiated. A demand notice was issued but only in the name of the petitioner’s husband and not in the name of her two sons, who are also Class-I heirs of the owner of the property pledged. It appears from the records of the case that the Bank took possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 20.01.2024 and later, the physical possession on 04.07.2025. The petitioner has challenged the entire proceedings before the DRT on the ground of no notice having been served on the heirs of the owner of the pledged property. The contention of the petitioner is that non-issuance of notice to all the heirs especially when the owner of the pledged property is not alive, makes the Page No.# 3/3 entire proceeding bad. In the present petition, there is a limited prayer of the petitioner that though the DRT is in seisin of the case but since no stay order has been passed, there is an apprehension of the petitioner that the articles of personal possession kept in the premises of the pledged property might be removed. Mr. A. Pervez, learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that till the time the DRT, Guwahati takes up the matter on the next date, the movable property belonging to the petitioner and her two sons shall not be removed. Recording such undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents/Bank, the writ petition is disposed off with a request to the DRT, Guwahati to consider the case of the petitioner when it is pleaded and pass a reasoned order. The writ petition stands disposed off with the afore-noted observation. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant