1 CGHC010254802026 2026:CGHC:29213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3549 of 2026 1 - Rajkumar Ramteke S/o Ashok Kumar Ramteke, Aged About 37 Years R/o H/o -613 C.B.H.B. Aaditya Nagar, Near Naveen School, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - H.D.B. Finance Service Limited Through Its Managing Director, Third Floor, Simran Tower, Jeevan Beema Marg, In Front Of Lic Building , Pandari District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, H.D.B. Finance Services Limited. Dakshin Gangotari Parisar Supela, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited , Through Its Managing Director, Retail Central Office- 1st Floor, Edelweiss House, Off. C S T Road, Kalina, Mumbai ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate appears along with Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate who appears as Amicus Curiae ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 13.07.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the possession notice dated 08.02.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, whereby possession of the secured assets has been sought to be taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has also questioned the consequential recovery proceedings on various grounds including alleged fraud, forgery of loan documents, wrongful continuation of proceedings against a deceased borrower, non-disclosure of insurance documents and illegal assignment of the loan account. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set- aside the impugned possession notice dated 08.02.2023 issued by the respondent no.3. [ANNEXURE P/1]. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dispose of this matter directing the civil court to register and hear the matter on merits in the light of the dictum passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & 3 circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had approached respondent No.1 for financial assistance by way of a Loan Against Property. According to the petitioner, he intended to obtain a loan of approximately Rs.15,00,000/- for liquidation of the existing housing loan and for meeting his financial requirements. It is his specific case that neither he nor his deceased mother executed the loan agreement or the security documents in the manner alleged by the respondents and that the signatures appearing thereon are forged and fabricated. It has further been pleaded that though insurance premium was recovered at the time of sanction of the loan, no insurance policy or related documents were ever supplied. Even after the death of the petitioner's mother, who was the owner of the secured property, the respondents neither invoked the insurance cover nor disclosed any particulars relating thereto. The petitioner also alleges that one person has been wrongly shown as a co-borrower despite having no role in the transaction. It is further pleaded that subsequently the loan account was assigned to respondent No.2 and thereafter demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act followed by possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act came to be issued. According to the petitioner, despite repeated complaints and legal notices raising allegations of fraud and forgery, the 4 respondents proceeded with recovery proceedings, compelling him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction as the very foundation of the loan transaction is under serious dispute. It is contended that the petitioner never executed the loan agreement or mortgage documents and that the signatures appearing thereon are forged and fabricated. Learned counsel would further submit that proceedings have illegally been continued even against the deceased borrower and despite recovery of insurance premium, the respondents have failed to disclose the insurance policy or extend the benefit thereof. It is further argued that the assignment of the loan account has also not been properly disclosed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court finds that the principal dispute raised by the petitioner is with regard to the genuineness of the loan documents and the allegation that he had not signed the loan agreement and other security documents. At the same time, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had availed and utilised the loan amount advanced by the financial institution. 5 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain (2025 INSC 95) has reiterated that where measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act have been taken, the aggrieved person has an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and ordinarily the High Court should refrain from entertaining a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact. 8. The controversy raised by the petitioner regarding alleged forgery of signatures, validity of the loan documents, legality of the security interest, assignment of the debt, insurance coverage and other ancillary issues would necessarily require appreciation of evidence and examination of disputed questions of fact, which are more appropriately adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issues raised by the petitioner can be effectively examined by the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that if the petitioner files an appropriate Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the competent Debts 6 Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 11. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha