1 2025:CGHC:3834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 463 of 2025 1 - Pravin Kumar Patel S/o Shri Arjun Bhai Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - General Manager Icici Bank, Registered Office, Icici Bank Tower, Near Chaki Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara (Gujrat) Old 390007 2 - Branch Manager Icici Bank, Golden Market Branch, Bhanpuri, Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - Regional Manager Icici Bank Limited 3rd And 4th Floor, Satpal Chambers, Gaurav Path, Near Raj Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. 4 - Additional Tahsildar Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 22/01/2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.22 17:31:35 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the memo dated 03/12/2024 issued by the respondent No.4 and the order dated 08/10/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal MJC No.1624/2024. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/Bank has already moved an application before the DRT in Original Application No.856/2024, which is still pending before the DRT, however, the respondent No.4 has proceeded to take physical possession over the property mortgaged by the petitioner as per memo dated 03/12/2024. He further submits that the two parallel proceedings cannot be drawn for the recovery of the amount. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that there is no illegality in the process initiated by the Tahsildar as the financial institutions are free to take steps by exercising their power under various forum simultaneously and there is no bar to proceed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, hence, there is no ground available to petitioner to question the proceedings drawn by the Tahsildar. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings. 5. As the petitioner is questioning the proceedings of the Tahsildar stating that though the original application of the bank is pending before the DRT, still the Tahsildar is proceeded under the 3 SARFAESI Act, 2002. The ground raised by the petitioner is not sufficient to entertain the writ petition. Banks or financial institutions are free to take steps under all the forum or law, which is available to them for recovery of the loan or credit. Hence, there is no illegality in the proceedings of the Tahsildar, the writ petition is dismissed, however, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue by filing a suitable application before the DRT. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep