1 2025:CGHC:43179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4570 of 2025 Mohammad Faruk Warsi S/o Late Musa Abdulah Arsi, Aged About 62 Years Proprietor Of M/s Mohammad Faruk Warsi, R/o House No. 10, Sbi Officers Colony, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Bank Of Baroda Through Branch Manager, Choubey Colony Branch, House No. 336, Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act issued by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner in respect of recovery of outstanding amount. 2 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Respondent Bank to consider and decide specific grievances raised by the Petitioner in respect of non-renewal of FDRs, unauthorized deduction of penal charges, interest and insurance premium amount. 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petition is being filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 08/05/2025 u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 (Annexure P-1). The Petitioner is seeking direction to the Respondent Bank authorities for redressal of his grievance raised by him repeatedly through various communications including e-mail which has not been considered. In the light of the fact that the Petitioner made payments on 13/02/2025 supported by the Statement (Annexure P-16), the Petitioner's account has been classified as NPA and impugned notice for recovery has been issued which is unsustainable, arbitrary and illegal. The act on the part of the Bank authorities has resulted in huge loss and impediment in the business of the Petitioner which needs to be resolved for smooth functioning of the business as well as in the interest of justice. The grievances include non-renewal of FDRs, unauthorized deduction of penal charges, interest and insurance premium amount without considering the specific communication and complaints made by the Petitioner. 3 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent- Bank contended that the it is a case of SARFAESI Act 2002, there is a provision to challenge the order of the respondent before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He further contended that 60 days time available to the petitioner to challenge the order of the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has never made complaint before the Banking ombudsman. 4. On the basis of submission made by learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is ready to approach the Bank and he wants to amicably settlement the matter including all the interest. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002, this petition is not maintainable. However as regards contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay whole amount of loan including interest and the petitioner wants to approach before the respondent- Bank, therefore, it is directed to the petitioner that he may approach before the respondent - Bank within ‘10 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in- turn this Court hopes and trust that the respondent-Bank shall make an earnest endeavour to decide the 4 grievance of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant