1 2025:CGHC:22351-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 340 of 2025 1. M/s. Mahamaya Feed Industry Through Its Proprietor. Mr. Subhash Rai, Village Bhagwanpur, Inside of Banaras Road In Front Of Gandhi Nagar, Thana Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) 2. Mr. Subhash Rai S/o Gurupad Rai Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhagwanpur, Inside of Banaras Road In Front of Gandhi Nagar , Thana Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Mr. Niranjan Rai S/o Gurupad Rai (Guarantor) Aged About 48 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Ward No. 2, Banaras Road Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector And District Magistrate Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 2. Bank of Baroda, Ambikapur Branch, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) Through Its Authorised Officer, Shri Arindam Nayak ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 01/State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 02 : Mr. Ayush Mahishwar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Ranbir Sigh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No. 01/State as well as Mr.Ayush Mahishwar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5942 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 02 was allowed. 3. Undisputed facts are that the appellants have taken a loan of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (three crore) from the respondent no.2 (Bank of Baroda) and when the appellant could not repay the loan amount with interest of Rs. 2,61,07,640/- he was declared as NPA (non performing asset) by respondent No. 2 on 29.10.2019. An application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for receiving possession of secured asset with the help of police as the said loan was availed against the assets of the appellants was filed before learned Court of District Magistrate and Collector, District Sarguja. After the declaration as NPA, the bank has asked for a one time settlement and on 01.11.2019 a demand notice was issued to the appellant by respondent No.2 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 3 to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,61,07,640/- along with interest and other charges within 60 days. The notices were duly served, but the appellant was unable to pay the loan amount, upon which respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings of possession of asset proceeding uner Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act on the mortgaged/secured property. 4. The matter was heard and the final order dated 19.09.2024 was passed by respondent No. 1. The appellants are continuously depositing the loan amount in the bank and there is no base to continue this case as the appellants have filed a bank statement where it clearly shows that the amount of loan paid in 11 installments by the appellants in one account No. 13360600001941 was Rs. 60,24,346/- and in another account no. 13360500000174 was about 1,24,50,000/- which total amounts to Rs.1,84,74,346/- which the appellants has paid over the period from 29.12.2021 to 05.02.2024 and also paid 27,54,000/- on dated 25.04.2025 and the appellants are continuously paying the amount to the bank. Further, being aggrieved by this order passed by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 has filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPC No. 5942/2024 and learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No. 2 has not looked into the documents where the appellants even after being considered as NPA have paid the loan amount in 11 installments and are continuously paying the amount till date and only upon that basis the respondent No.2 has considered to finish the litigation and the appellants are still ready to pay the amount left. He further submits that the appellants 4 reputation will be tarnished in the society as well as the place of their work and the appellants are ready to repay the amount to the respondent No.2 over and above this. The appellants will not be able to work in future as the credit score which they have build over the years will be effected and will tremendously the work of the appellants. He also submits that on humanitarian grounds the appellants would seek permission to repay the whole amount as they have been paying all this while and are ready to repay the whole amount. So, it is a humble request to not possess his assets and amount will be repaid by the appellants. He contended that while passing the impugned order learned Single Judge has not considered that the appellants are still paying the loan amount till date. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 02, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that as as per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act the District Magistrate is only authorized to assist the secured creditors in taking 5 possession of secured assets under the provisions of the act, 2002 and the District Magistrate is not having any power under the Act, 2002 to adjudicate anything and to consider the request made by the borrower, hence, the impugned order which is under challenge by the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and as such, quashed the order passed by the District Magistrate. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.2, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error which warrants interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bini