Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010263252025 2025:GAU- AS:16156-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6704/2025 SIMANTA DAS THROUGH HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI BALWANT SINGH, RODALI PATH, HOUSE NO. 35, GUWAHATI, ASSAM - 781022. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, 110001. 2:STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH-I NAGALAND HOUSE 8TH FLOOR 11 AND 13 SHAKESPEARE SARANI KOLKATA - 700071. 3:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND CLO V STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH-I STATE BANK OF INDIA NAGALAND HOUSE 8TH FLOOR 11 AND 13 SHAKESPEARE SARANI KOLKATA 700071 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GURUGRAM HARYANA Page No.# 2/4 MINI SECRETARIAT GURUGRAM - 122001. 5:THE TEHSILDAR CUM EXECUTIVE MAGIST RATE WAZIRABAD GURUGRAM HARYANA RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTING ON THE NOTICE DATED 04.11.2025. . Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K TALUKDAR, SURAJ SONOWAL,MS C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 27.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) 1. We have heard Mr. P. Goswami, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Sonowal, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Deputy S.G.I. for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This matter has been listed today on urgent mentioning by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The reason for filing this petition is that an Advance Possession Notice has been issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and actual possession of the property is to be taken on 28.11.2025. 4. The petitioner had approached the DRT for relief, which was rejected despite the fact that the respondent Bank’s admitted claim, according to the petitioner, has been fully satisfied under a Resolution Page No.# 3/4 Plan duly approved on 20.12.2024, in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s Ayursundra Hospitals (Guwahati) Pvt. Ltd. 5. Against the aforenoted order passed by the DRT, Guwahati, the petitioner has approached the DRAT, Kolkata, where the matter has not been heard because the Tribunal is to sit on 03.12.2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that an application for lessening the 50% amount as a pre-requisite for entertaining such appeal against the order of DRT, is still pending for consideration before the DRAT. This would take some time. Fearing physical dispossession, which according to the petitioner, is irreversible, the petitioner has rushed to this Court for temporary relief till the time the DRAT decides the issue. 7. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondent Bank has submitted that the Resolution Plan clearly stipulates that the guarantor would not be covered with respect to the residual amount, which does not form part of the Resolution Plan. 8. Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBC Code, 2016) and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited – Vs- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited reported in 2021 9 SCC 657 mandate that once the Resolution Plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under Sub Section 1 of Section 31 of the IBC Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan, shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other Page No.# 4/4 stakeholders. However, it shall not cover the case of a guarantor with respect to the residual amount, which does not form part of the Resolution Plan. 9. However, in any view of the matter, the issue requires to be adjudicated factually and legally. 10. Since the petitioner has not been able to agitate his claim before the DRAT, Kolkata, which is not likely to sit before 03.12.2025, we deem it proper to direct the respondent Bank not to insist for dispossession at least for two weeks, to be counted from today, so as to enable the petitioner to have the issues raised by him adjudicated by the DRAT. 11. Necessary communication shall be made by the respondent Bank to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, who are to effect the physical possession of the property in question. 12. Since, we have not issued notice to respondent Nos. 4 & 5, we have only requested the learned counsel for the respondent Bank to intimate this observation to them. 13. With the aforenoted observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 14. We further make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant