[2025:RJ-JP:17577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18649/2024 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, And Having Its Office At D- 231, 232 6Th Floor Atlantis Tower Amrapali Marg Near Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021 Through Its Authorized Officer, Mr Akshay Khandelwal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Manish Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Having His Residence At Plot No. 365, Road No. 14, V.k.i Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302013 2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Its Authorized Officer Having Its Office At Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. Zurich Kotak General Insurance, Having Its Office At 201- 204, 2V Floor Chintamani Classic, Vishveshwar Nagar, Goregaon East, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400063, Through Its Aughorized Officer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivangshu Naval JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-II, Jaipur by which status quo order has been passed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had borrowed amount from the petitioner and failed to repay the same, hence, under these circumstances, the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, were initiated against him. Counsel submits that when the amount was [2025:RJ-JP:17577] (2 of 3) [CW-18649/2024] not returned, the proceedings under Section 13(4) were also initiated. Counsel submits that even a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act was submitted by the respondents before the DRT and when they did not get any success, then, under these circumstances, while concealing these facts the respondents approached the District Consumer Forum by way of filing an application, wherein the interim order has been passed in a cyclostyled and stereo type manner. Counsel submits that as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the District Consumer Forum or any other Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such like matters, but going beyond the jurisdiction, the District Consumer Forum has passed the order impugned. Counsel submits that even the preliminary objection about maintainability of the application, filed by the petitioner, has been taken by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum, but in spite of passing of considerable time, these objections have not been decided, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Looking to the fact that preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum, in view of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act have already been submitted by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum, it is expected from the District Consumer Forum to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective sides. [2025:RJ-JP:17577] (3 of 3) [CW-18649/2024] 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/197