1 CGHC010288452026 2026:CGHC:31967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3927 of 2026 1 - M/s Navkar Associates Through Its Partner Navin Nagwani, Son Of Late Shri Harjesh Ray Nagwani, Aged About 46 Years, R/o In Front Of Mamta Laxmi Nursing Home, Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Navin Nagwani S/o Late Shri Harjesh Ray Nagwani Aged About 46 Years R/o In Front Of Mamta Laxmi Nursing Home, Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Union Bank Through Authorized Officer Chief Manager, Stressed Asset Management Branch Mumbai, Ground Floor, 104 Bharat House, M.S. Marg Fort Mumbai- 400001. 2 - Jitendra Kamath Authorised Officer, Chief Manager, Stressed Asset Management Branch Mumbai, Ground Floor, 104 Bharat House, M.S. Marg Fort Mumbai- 400001. 3 - Kunal Jiwarajka S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Jiwarajka Aged About 42 Years R/o 161 N.W.C. Grand Parade Apartments, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai, India. 4 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sharad Mishra (through VC) along with Mr. Kaustubh Singh Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.29 09:54:56 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the auction notice dated 04.07.2026 issued by respondent No.1 Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), whereby the property claimed by the petitioner to be its own and not mortgaged with the Bank has been put to auction. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the auction notice dated 4/7/2026 (P-1) issued without any authority and thereby conducting auction on 28/7/2026 of the property which is not mortgaged by the petitioner in facts and circumstance of the case. C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent authority not to proceed against 3 the property of the petitioner in the interest of justice. D. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue direction to the DRT Jabalpur (MP) to decide the interim application and case of the petitioner within time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstance of the case. E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. F. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by filing a Securitisation Application (Reference No. SA 2026072393287) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur on 23.07.2026 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is confining the present writ petition to a limited prayer that the concerned DRT be directed to take up the Securitisation Application on an urgent basis and pass appropriate orders thereon. It is further submitted that an interim application has also been filed before the DRT seeking urgent protection as the auction of the subject property is scheduled to be held on 28.07.2026. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the prayer and submits that the writ petition has been filed at a belated stage and is not maintainable in view of the 4 availability of an efficacious statutory remedy. It is, however, fairly not disputed that the petitioner has already filed the aforesaid Securitisation Application before the DRT on 23.07.2026. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has obtained an ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024 cancelling the sale deed, the Bank was not impleaded as a party in the said civil proceedings and, therefore, the said decree is not binding upon the Bank. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy by filing the Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and that the sale deed has also been declared null and void by judgment and decree dated 30.01.2024, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on merits. The petitioner is relegated to pursue the remedy before the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is submitted that, at present, the DRT, Ahmedabad is functioning in respect of matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of DRT, Jabalpur. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the concerned DRT seeking urgent hearing of the pending Securitisation Application as well as the interim application. 5 6. Considering the urgency expressed by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted 10 days' time from today to approach the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtain appropriate orders. 7. Till expiry of the aforesaid period of 10 days from today, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned auction notice dated 04.07.2026. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh