1 CGHC010328162026 2026:CGHC:38304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4432 of 2026 1 - Mahamayi Stone Cursher Through The Proprietor Anurag Mishra Aged About 38 Years S/o Late Satish Mishra R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mura Stone Crusher, Proprietor Satish Mishra (Now Dead) Through The Legal Heirs Anurag Mishra Aged About 38 Years S/o Late Satish Mishra R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Mahamayi Traders, Through The Proprietor Smt. Swarnalata Mishra Aged About 71 Years W/o Late Satish Mishra R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited Through The Authorized Officer, Corporate Office Development Guindy 27, A, Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai -600032 2 - Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, Ground Floor, Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 31.08.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the possession notice dated 12.08.2026 issued by the respondent- finance company under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”), as also the order dated 03.08.2026 whereby the representation/objections submitted by the petitioners have been rejected. 2. Following reliefs have been sought in this petition:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the subject matter. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Possession notice dt. 12.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondents. 10.3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the interest levied for the undue delay and prolonged pendency of the stretched matter and harassment suffered by the petitioners throughout the years due to non compliance of the respondent authorities. 3 10.4. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief which the Court deems fit and proper with cost of petition.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had availed loan facility from the respondent-finance company against the secured property and, on account of financial difficulties arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, certain defaults occurred. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in WPC No.3539 of 2021 and in the subsequent proceedings, wherein directions were issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations before taking coercive measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the aforesaid orders, the detailed objections/representation dated 20.07.2026 submitted by the petitioners have been rejected by the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 without proper consideration of the issues raised therein. It is further submitted that the petitioners had specifically raised the issue regarding the Group Credit Protection Plus Insurance Scheme in respect of deceased borrower Late Satish Mishra, the levy of interest and penal charges during the period of delay, and had also expressed their willingness to settle the genuine and undisputed dues to the extent of ₹1,25,00,000/-. It is further submitted that, despite the aforesaid representation and objections, the respondent-finance company has proceeded to issue the possession notice dated 4 12.08.2026 demanding an amount of approximately ₹7,55,56,659/-. According to learned counsel, the correctness of the amount claimed, the applicability of the insurance policy, the legality of the interest and penal charges and the validity of the measures initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are all matters which require adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to avail the statutory remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, at this stage, appropriate liberty may be granted to approach the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal against the impugned measures. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. From the pleadings and submission made before this Court, it is evident that the principal grievance of the petitioners relates to the measures taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, including the possession notice dated 12.08.2026, as well as the correctness of the amount claimed and the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to insurance coverage, interest, penal charges and other aspects of the loan account. 6. The SARFAESI Act provides a specific and efficacious statutory remedy to an aggrieved person against the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4), by approaching the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said 5 Act. The issues sought to be raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions relating to the loan account, computation of outstanding dues, applicability of the insurance policy and validity of the measures taken by the secured creditor, which can appropriately be examined by the competent Tribunal. 7. In view of the availability of the statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the rival claims in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that they intend to avail the statutory remedy, it would be appropriate to grant them reasonable time to approach the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or on the rival contentions of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing an appropriate application/appeal against the possession notice dated 12.08.2026 and other consequential measures, within a period of 20 days from today. 9. If the petitioners approach the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal within the aforesaid period of 20 days, the respondent- secured creditor shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to the possession notice dated 12.08.2026 against the petitioners or the secured asset for a period of 20 days from today. 6 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, including the issues relating to the insurance policy, outstanding amount, levy of interest/penal charges, or the validity of the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act. All such questions are left open for consideration by the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. 11. The competent Debts Recovery Tribunal, if approached within the aforesaid period, shall consider the application of the petitioners in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. 12. With the aforesaid liberty and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha