[2025:RJ-JP:16150] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2230/2025 Kotak Mahindra Bank, Through Authorized Officer Having Its Office At D-232 6Th Floor Atlantis Tower, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-21 Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jagdish Parasd Sharma, S/o Sh. Shreeram Sharma, Aged Adult, Resident Of Plot No. 365, Road No. 14, V.k.i Industrial Area, Jaipur. 2. M/s Shivdaal Mill, Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Sh. Gajanand Sharma, S/o Sh. Shreeram Sharma, Having Address At 365, Road No. 14, V.k.i Industrial Area, Jaipur. 3. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Authorized Officer, having Its Office At K-14, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 4. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Its Authorized Officer Having Its Office At Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shivangshu Naval For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sanjay Shrivastava Mr.Adeet Shrivastava JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the District Consumer Forum, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16150] (2 of 3) [CW-2230/2025] proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, were initiated against him. Counsel submits that when the amount was 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16150] (3 of 3) [CW-2230/2025] 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. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/69