1 2026:CGHC:26702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 735 of 2026 1 - I D F C First Bank Limited Through Its Legal Manager Shivam Samari S/o Late Santosh Samari Aged About 27 Years Having Branch Office At 1st Floor Satpal Chambers, Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur - 492001 (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dilip Kumar Jangde Part Of Aabadi Land Khara No. 518/1 /k Plot No. 20 Ph. No. 19, Tehsil Jaijaipur, Village Parasadih District- Shakti - 495690 Also At 97 Parasadih Sendri, Janjgir- Champa, Bazar Chowk Korba Chhattisgarh Respondents Present Correct Name And Address) 2 - Kalashbai Jangde Part Of Aabadi Land Khara No. 518/1 /k Plot No. 20 Ph. No. 19, Tehsil Jaijaipur, Village Parasadih District- Shakti - 495690 Also At 97 Parasadih Sendri, Janjgir- Champa, Bazar Chowk Korba Chhattisgarh Respondents Present Correct Name And Address) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.02 10:59:26 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 30/06/2026 Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner claiming with the following reliefs: 10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti to forthwith accept and register the petitioner’s application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and to adjudicate the same expeditiously within the statutory period contemplated under Section 14 of the Act in the proposed case titled IDFC First Bank Limited Vs. Dilip Kumar Jangde and Another, in the interest of justice. 10.2. That this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing declaring that where a demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been duly served upon all concerned persons, including the borrower, co-borrower(s), guarantor(s) and mortgagor(s) in accordance with Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 publication of such notice in newspapers is not mandatory but only an alternative mode of service to be resorted to int the contingencies contemplated under the proviso to 3 Rule 3(1) of the said Rules. 10.3. 10.3. That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the Competent Authority/Magistrate is required to confine its inquiry to the matters contemplated under the said provision and cannot refuse to accept, register, entertain or decide an application filed thereunder on the grounds beyond the scope of such inquiry, including objections relating to the adequacy, sufficiency, validity or mode of service of the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, which issues are amenable to adjudication by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 10.4. Consequently, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to declare that any refusal by the Competent Authority/magistrate to accept, register, entertain or decide an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on such grounds is illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, contrary to the scheme and object of the Act, in the interest of justice. 10.5. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 4 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate declined to entertain the said application on the ground that the petitioner was required to publish the notice contemplated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in a newspaper before the application could be considered. 4. It is contended that the statutory notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act have already been duly served upon the borrowers and all concerned persons therefore, once service of notice has been duly effected, publication in a newspaper is not a mandatory precondition for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act. It is, thus, prayed that an appropriate direction be issued to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti to entertain the petitioner's application and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioener, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought not have refused to entertain the application solely on the premise that publication of notice in a newspaper is a condition precedent for filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The question as to whether the statutory requirements have been duly complied with is a matter to be examined by the competent authority while adjudicating the application on its own merits. 5 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti. Upon such application being filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall entertain the same and decide the same strictly in accordance with law on its own merits. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge