1 2026:CGHC:24505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2654 of 2026 Amit Soni S/o K.C. Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o. House No. A/106, Ashoka Enterprises, First Floor, Sardhu Raipur, Near Hundai Showroom, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus I.C.I.C.I Bank Limited Satpal Chamber, Teli Bandha Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the symbolic possession notice dated 07.04.2026 issued by the Authorized Officer of respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.17 18:19:19 +0530 2 2002 in respect of the petitioner's residential property bearing Flat No.106, First Floor, Block-A, Ashoka Impression, Village Mowa, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Ward No.27, P.H. No.109/39, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. Allow the present writ petition and quash/set aside the impugned symbolic possession notice dated 07.04.2026 issued by the Authorized Officer of respondent ICICI Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in respect of the secured asset/property of the petitioners. 10.2 Direct the respondents not to proceed further pursuant to the impugned symbolic possession notice dated 07.04.2026 and further restrain the respondents from taking coercive possession of the residential property of the petitioners during pendency of the present petition. 10.3 Pass any other order(s), direction(s) or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid notice has been issued despite the fact that S.A. No.608 of 2025 instituted by the petitioner is pending consideration before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal and an interim order dated 22.09.2025 is operating in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that the Presiding Officer of the concerned Tribunal is presently not available and, therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of an efficacious opportunity to seek redressal of his 3 grievance before the statutory forum. On the aforesaid grounds, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the notice dated 07.04.2026 appears to have been issued inadvertently and has wrongly been communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent-Bank is not taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the said notice and shall remain bound by the interim order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No.608 of 2025. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent-Bank, which is taken on record, no further adjudication survives in the present writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the observation that the respondent-Bank shall abide by the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No.608 of 2025 and shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of the notice dated 07.04.2026. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh