1 2025:CGHC:3588-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 20 of 2025 Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) S/o (Late) Shri Ashok Kale Aged About 46 Years R/o Kale Wada, Tilak Nagar, Main Road, Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur (Chhattisgah) 495001 Mob.- 9425530260 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai- 400 001 (M.S.) 2 - State Bank Of India (Lead Banker / Sponsor-Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank), Chairman-Sbi, Sbi Headquarters, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai (M.S.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Director, Directorate Of Institutional Finance C.G. Govt., Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Chairman, Corporate Office Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Branch Manager- Lingyadih, Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector / District Magistrate - District Bilaspur, Collectorate Building, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495001 ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.21 18:04:00 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.01.2025 1. Heard Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5712/2024 (Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has taken housing loan from respondent No. 05. Loan was approved by concerned authority with due their internal communication & issued a sanction letter dated 05.08.2020, which was not handed over to the appellant at the time of sanctioning and signature of loan agreement. Appellant made various verbal & nonverbal 3 communications to respondent No. 05, for issue of signed copy of loan agreement to him, but concerned has not given said copy. Appellant continuously chased respondent No. 05 & their higher official for his copy of Loan agreement, but respondents have not given him the same. After various stages of oral & written request from Appellant, the said responded No. 05, has given said loan papers through their letter No. 320 Dated 30.12.2022. Appellant has noticed that E.M.I. Repayment date was not mentioned in Annexure B of loan agreement and same has been communicated to respondent No. 05. Till date, respondent has not taken any action on the same. In spite of same, respondent has start initiating process of declaring the NPA (Non-Performing asset) of mortgaged property & started Action under SARFASAI Act, against appellant. Appellant has made sincere efforts to solve the matter but Respondent No. 05 and their higher officers are adamant. Appellant preferred petition against the action taken by Respondent No. 05 and their higher officials / office, to the "Banking Lokpal" of Respondent No. 01, on 17.10.2023 the action taken against Appellant by the concern authority of Respondent No. 05 for not taken any action on the fixation of EMI date. Respondent No, 05 has replied to Respondent No. 01 wide their letter dated 23.10.2023, which are away from the correct facts & figure. Appellant has again filed complaint to Respondent dated 02.11.2023 with all corrected facts & figures but it was rejected by respondent No. 01, without going through in details & favors 4 Respondent No. 05 & their official / office. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he finding of learned Single Judge is that, the since matter is under DRT, this court has no Jurisdiction over proceedings, which was always from the relief desired by the appellant. Further, appellant has not challenged any action proceeded by respondent, under SARFAESI Act and the same is not in pleading in the writ petition WPC 5712/2024, the jurisdiction issue does not arise and hence, the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside. Later, appellant is being aggrieved by no proper action taken by the Respondent No. 01 against the complaint of appellant against Respondent No. 05. Respondent No. 05 is involved in the unfair practice and same is supported by the Respondent No. 01 as Respondent No. 01 has not properly scrutinized the complaint and the reply filed by the respondent No. 04, against the corrected procedure followed by the appellant, which was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court while disposing the petition filled by Appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that grievance of the writ petitioner in petition is that various irregularities have been committed by respondents No.4 & 5 i.e. Gramin Bank while granting loan to the writ petitioner. Since account of writ petitioner is declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA), therefore, order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been passed against writ petitioner and Appeal No.343/24 is pending consideration before the D.R.T., Jabalpur. In umpteen number of cases, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, in proceeding under SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not have interfered as all remedial provisions have been enacted in the SARFAESI Act itself for redressal of grievance, therefore, writ Court should not interfere. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such 6 we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. As such, the present writ appeal stands dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet