1 CGHC010319332026 2026:CGHC:36532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4312 of 2026 1 - Mr. Nishant Joshi S/o Lt. V.K. Joshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Flat No. 301 ( A Block), 3rd Floor, Arya Polis Residential Complex, Part Of Khasra No. 99/9, Domar Talab, Mahoba Bazar, R.N.M. Raipur- 1, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Authorized Officer Bank Of Maharashtra, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Department Of Finance Through Secretary, Government Of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vedagni Jangde, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 aside the impugned notice 08.07.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the respondent no. 1 bank. ii. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set- aside the order passed by the District Magistrate on 06.11.2025 (ANNEXURE P/2) for possession. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iv. Any other relief, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a reputed businessman engaged in the automobile business and had availed loan facilities from respondent No.1-Bank in the year 2019 for running a motorcycle showroom under the name and style of “BENELLI”. Out of the six term loan facilities availed by the petitioner, two have already been fully repaid and closed, which demonstrates the petitioner’s bona fide conduct and his intention to honour his financial commitments. It is submitted that, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent transition from BS-IV to BS-VI emission norms, the petitioner suffered substantial financial losses and was compelled to dispose of his existing stock at heavy discounts, resulting in his inability to repay the outstanding loan within the stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that the loan facilities availed by the petitioner were covered under the CGTMSE/Hybrid Guarantee Scheme, for 3 which the requisite charges had also been paid, but the benefit of the said scheme was not extended to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner having submitted a proposal for restructuring and repayment of the outstanding dues, the respondent-Bank, without duly considering his past repayment record, credit history and the proposal submitted by him, initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and proceeded with the measures for possession and auction of the secured property. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already preferred S.A. No. 891/2023 before the DRT, Jabalpur; however, no effective hearing has taken place therein till date, whereas the respondent-Bank has proceeded with the auction of the secured property. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings and auction notice are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and are liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an efficacious and statutory alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, where S.A. No. 891/2023, preferred by the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter, is already pending consideration. It is submitted that the grievances raised by the petitioner arise out of the measures taken by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, the same are amenable to the jurisdiction of the DRT. It is further submitted that, in view of the availability of an effective alternative 4 remedy and the pendency of the petitioner’s securitisation application before the competent DRT, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy by filing S.A. No. 891/2023 before the DRT, Jabalpur, which is pending consideration, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The grievances raised by the petitioner pertain to the measures taken by the respondent-Bank under the SARFAESI Act and can appropriately be adjudicated by the competent DRT. The petitioner may, therefore, pursue his remedies before the concerned DRT in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy and the pendency of the matter before the competent DRT. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat