1 2025:CGHC:59013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1261 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jaikumari Choudhary W/o Late Shri Santosh Prakash Choudhary Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.15, Lakhagarh, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Kumari Richa Choudhary D/o Late Shri Santosh Prakash Choudhary Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No.15, Lakhagarh, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Seema Choudhary D/o Late Shri Santosh Prakash Choudhary Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No.15, Lakhagarh, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Ankit Choudhary S/o Late Shri Santosh Prakash Choudhary Aged About 17 Years C/o Petitioner No. 1, R/o Ward No.15, Lakhagarh, Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Bank Of India A Body Corporate, Constituted Under The State Bank Of India Act 1955, Having Its Head Office At Mumbai, And Amongst Other Branches, A Branch At State Bank Of India, Sarb, Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Authorised Officer Shri Manoj Sharma (Designated As Chief Manager), Having Address At SBI, Pithora, Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Akshat Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Shri P.R.Patankar, Adv. with Ms. Vartika Shrivastava and Shri Swapnil Thawani, Advocates ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 04/12/2025 Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - 2 A. Stay on the operation and effect of the order dated 29/01/2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in MJC No.1110/2023 (State Bank of India v. Jaikumari Choudhary), until the final adjudication of SA/273/2025 and SA/277/2025 titled “Smt. Jaikumari Choudhary v. State Bank of India & ors.” and “Smt. Jaikumari Choudhary v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors” presently pending before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and remand back the matter to the concerned trial Court to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. B. Quash and set aside the notices dated 10/06/2025 (received on 13.11.2025) issued by the Ld. Tehsildar. C. Pass any other order(s) or direction (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has been preferred against order dated 29/01/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Raipur in MJC No.1110/23 whereby the learned CJM has erroneously initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the ‘SARFAESI Act) and passed the impugned order (Annexure P/1) thereby the petitioner has been directed to hand over the physical possession of the property situated at Khasra No.218/57, area 800 sq.ft. village Mowa, P.H.No.39/45/109, R.N.M. Raipur-1, Kushabhau Thackeray Ward No.26, Dubey Colony, Tehsil and District – Raipur to the respondent / Bank. For that purpose, necessary support of police force may be taken in accordance with law. He submits that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has been displaced from the said property and he prays that the matter may be remanded back to the CJM for adjudication of the application after hearing the petitioner. He submits that the loan was advanced in favour of Late Shri Santosh Prakash Chaudhary and the petitioner is his wife. Late Santosh Prakash Chaudhary availed housing loan of Rs.31,50,000/- from HDFC Bank which was subsequently transferred to the respondent. It is further submitted that the insurance policy was also taken to secure the loan amount. Premium of the same has also been paid. 3 The respondent never issued any policy document. Later on, the insurance policy was unilaterally canceled by the respondent. A litigation before the Consumer Commission has been raised by the petitioner and the matter is pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. As the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before the learned CJM, all these aspects have not been dealt with by the learned CJM, therefore, the petitioner is seeking the abovestated relief. 3. Opposing the above submission Shri Patankar submits that the order is challenged under the standing power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which is appealable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, assorting to remedy available under the Act, this writ petition is not maintainable. He places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110, R.D.Jain and Company v. Capital First Limited and ors., (2023) 1 SCC 675, Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and ors., (2022) 5 SCC 345, M/s. Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. and anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh through District Magistrate Ghaziabad and anr., AIR 2018 SC 5383, Indian Bank v. M/s. Blue Jaggers Estate Ltd. & ors., 2010 AIR SCW 4751 and judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. G.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Authorised officer (WPC No.1801/2015) passed on 16/12/2016 and order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rinu Bajaj and anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors. (WPC No.6181/2025) order dated 28/11/2025. 4. Replying to the above submission, Shri Tiwari submits that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertain this petition and looking to the fact that principle of natural justice has not been adhere to, this Court may entertain this petition. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and ors, (2022) 16 SCC 428. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the husband of the petitioner availed loan facility from the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the loan amount could not be repaid. An application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed by 4 the respondent before the learned CJM which resulted into the impugned order. Ofcourse, the availability of alternative remedy would not divest the High Court’s power to entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases. But in the case in hand, looking to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited above, as there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner, particularly the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in the matter involving dispute under the SARFAESI Act. 7. Thus, this Court is not impressed with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if there is availability of alternative remedy, this Court should entertain this petition. The writ petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner may avail remedy available under the law if so desires. Certified copy of the annexures may be returned after retaining duly attested photo copies of the same. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 11:07:52 +0530