Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21343 (JHR)

Saroj Sharma W/o Shri Anil Kumar Sharma v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi

2026-02-24

Rajesh Kumar

body2026
JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “(i) commanding upon the respondent State Bank of India and its authority to not to proceed further under the sale notice dated 16.1.2026 (as contained in Annexure-7 series) issued under the signature of the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi till the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi becomes functional; (ii) an order may be passed staying the operation of the sale notice dated 16.1.2026 (as contained in Annexure-7 series) issued under the signature of the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi till the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi becomes functional; (iii) alternatively, be further be pleased to quash/set aside, with all consequences, the notices dated 16.1.2026.and 17.1.2026 (as contained in Annexure-7 series) both issued under the signature of the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi and the preceding notices dated 19.4.2025 and 21.4.2025 (as contained in Annexure-5 series) both issued under the signature of the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi.” 2. The present case is being taken up as Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi is not functional. The purpose of entertaining the petition is for grant of interim relief. 3. The transaction in question is admittedly a commercial transaction between the parties. The only ground urged before this Court is alleged improper valuation of the secured asset. This Court is of the considered view that such a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and, by itself, does not constitute a valid ground for staying the process initiated under the SARFAESI Act. 4. It is a settled principle of law that mere filing of a writ petition does not confer a right to interim protection. Grant of stay in financial matters, particularly in recovery proceedings initiated by secured creditors, must be exercised with circumspection so as not to frustrate statutory recovery mechanisms. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition, accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of reserving liberty with the petitioner to work out their remedies in accordance with law.