1 2025:CGHC:61126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6523 of 2025 1 - M/s R.S. Tradecon Through Its Proprietor/ Partner, Saket Agrawal, S/o Ramgopal Agrawal, Aged About 43 Years Having Its Office At Shop No. 09 And 10, 2nd Floor, Saheed Veernarayan Singh Commercial Parisar, Raipur, R/o No. 18, Block Mandira Marlin Jayshri Vihar Pandari Tarai Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh -- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Office At Pujari Chambers Complex, Tikrapara, Near Pachpedinaka, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 2 - The Authorized Officer Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Corporate Office No. 27a, Developed Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600032 3 - The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Drt) Jabalpur (Having Jurisdiction Over Chhattisgarh) Through Its Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal (Drt) 2nd And 3rd Floor, Sanchar Vikas Bhavan (Bsnl Building), Near Head Post Office, Residency Road, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh- 482001 4 - District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.4 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.18 13:48:47 +0530 2 Order On Board 16/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “A. ISSUE a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings from the Respondent Bank and QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE the impugned Second Demand Notice dated 07.10.2025 (published on 11.10.2025/25.10.2025) issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; B. Quash/Set aside that the issuance of the Second Demand Notice being illegal, void ab initio, and constitutes a deliberate Abuse of Process of Law; C. ISSUE a Writ of Mandamus restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive steps or initiating any further proceedings against the Petitioners based on the impugned notice dated 07.10.2025; D. DIRECT the Respondents to pay exemplary costs to the Petitioners for the mental agony and the cost of multiple litigations forced upon them due to the Respondent's defective and malafide proceedings; E. PASS such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to uphold the dignity of the judicial process and protect the Petitioners from harassment.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.1 financial company has earlier initiated proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (In short ‘the Act of 2002’), against which petitioner has filed S.A. No.767 of 2023 and considering the grounds raised in that proceedings, interim order of status-quo was 3 granted in favour of petitioner. It is contended that after passing of order, now again second notice U/s. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 dated 07.10.2025 is issued, which is in the nature of frustrating the interim order passed in favour of petitioner and abuse of process of law. 3. Considering the facts that petitioner is aggrieved with initiation of proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 and further petitioner has already approached Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur against one of the notice issued, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition as petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the same before the statutory Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2002. 4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty with petitioner to approach the appropriate forum seeking appropriate relief. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram