1 2025:CGHC:35703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3860 of 2025 1 - Ranjeet Singh Bhatia S/o. Shri Gurudayal Singh Bhatia Aged About 48 Years R/o Rajiv Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. House No. C-94, Bajaj Colony, Sector 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Also At - House No. C-26 Bajaj Colony, Sector 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. Also At - B-1/7, Opp. Vijeta Complex, Main Road, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. Wrong Address Mentioned In Annexure P/1 As House No. C-26, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur 2 - Harjeet Singh Bhatia S/o Shri Gurudayal Singh Bhatia Aged About 52 Years R/o Rajiv Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. House No. C-94, Bajaj Colony, Sector 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Also At - House No. C-26 Bajaj Colony, Sector 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. Also At - B-1/7, Opp. Vijeta Complex, Main Road, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. Wrong Address Mentioned In Annexure P/1 As House No. C-26, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur 3 - M/s . Satguru Traders Through The Proprietor Harjeet Singh Bhatia R/o Rajiv Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. House No. C-94, Bajaj Colony, Sector 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Also At - House No. C-26 Bajaj Colony, Sector 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. Also At - B-1/7, Opp. Vijeta Complex, Main Road, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. Wrong Address Mentioned In Annexure P/1 As House No. C-26, Bajaj Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur New Address - Devpuri Main Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Yes Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Yes Bank House Off Western Express Highway, Santracruz East, Mumbai 400055 (Maharashtra) And Branch Office At A Yes Bank Limited Kolkata Rssc, 1st Floor, Stephen House, 56e, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata 700001-700091 West Bengal Through Its Authorised Office Shri Biswadip Bhattacharjee S/o. Shri Debasis Bhattacharjee, Occupation Legal Senior Manager Risk - Retail Legal (East) Yes Bank Limited. 2 - Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kind enough to call the record of the Petitioners. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to pass appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s to quash the impugned proceedings and order Annexure P/1 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to pass any writ,order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and to command the respondents to refrain from any action under SARFAESI Act. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to pass appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 2 had applied for the loan of Rs. 1,30,90,000/- from the respondent no. 1 in three different amount Rs. 1,04,00,000/-, Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 11,90,000/- against the property situated at Khasra No. 389/12, P.S. No. 84, Rajiv Housing Cooperative Society Limited admeasured 3270 sq. ft. with all piece and parcel of the residential building. The loan was continuously paid to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioners until the 3 account of the petitioners got not profitable on 01.04.2024. The petitioners have not received any notice either under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act or under Section 13(4) of the Act from the respondent no. 1 inspite of payments has been made by the petitioners from 16.03.2021 until 15.06.2025 therefore the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 1 is absolutely illegal and therefore the entire proceedings under Section 14 are also illegal by suppression of material facts. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that the action relates with SARFAESI Act and there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On bare perusal of the record and submission made by the petitioner that notice has been issued by the respondent authority in newspaper namely The Chronicle and the Swadesh in Raipur. Therefore, it is crystal clear that notice has been issued by the respondent authority. Since the matter in issue is related with SARFAESI Act and there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima 4