1 CGHC010277092026 2026:CGHC:38524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1090 of 2026 Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. C- 21, Tower C (1-3 Floors), G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -400051 And Having Its Branch Office At Pujari Chambers Complex, Tikrapara, Near Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001 Through Its Authorized Officer Mr. Kirtiraj Deshmukh, Occupation Service ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ambika Spoken English Tuitioin, Classes Business Address House No. 10 / 245, K H No. 918, Purana Ha. Ha,. No Naya Pa. Ha. No. 62, Village Raipur Ward No. 45, Tehsil And District Raipur C. G. 2 - Unnati Shukla W/o Aditya Shukla R/o Apartment Satti Bazar Raipur, C. G. 3 - Aditya Shukla S/o Shiv Shanakr Shukla R/o Apartment Satti Bazar Raipur, C. G. 4 - Shiv Shankar Shukla S/o Gouri Shankar Shukla R/o Apartment Satti Bazar Raipur, C. G. 5 - Amma Kitechen Niwas House No. 10 / 245, Shri Shiv Shankar Shukla S/o Gouri Shankar Shukla Apartment Satti Bazar Raipur, C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Mangal, Advocate through virtual mode (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.02 13:52:25 +0530 2 31/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in SARFAESI Case No. 325 of 2026, whereby the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent borrowed a loan of Rs.48,19,682/- on 05.08.2021 and a loan agreement was executed on 03.09.2021 after mortgage of his property. Since the loan could not be repaid by the respondents, the account was declared as NPA and the petitioner after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) and after compliance of the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for physical possession of the secured assets but the same has been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that from the document annexed with the application, it reveals that the loan was sanctioned on 05.08.2021 and the agreement was executed on 03.09.2021, that is, before execution of agreement, the loan has already been sanctioned, which appears to be a discrepancy in the sanctioning loan and since the document does not satisfy the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, their application has been rejected. He would further submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot adjudicate the factual dispute between 3 the parties but only to hand over this physical possession of secured assets. Thereby, rejection of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is bad in law and the matter may be remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, it transpires that the loan was sanctioned to the respondent on 05.08.2021 and an agreement was executed on 03.09.2021 with respect to the borrowed amount of Rs. 48,19,682/- and since the loan account was declared NPA on 05.06.2024, the respondent filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act after having compliance of the provisions under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available in the petition, this Court finds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, has rejected the same mainly on the ground of certain alleged discrepancies in the loan document. The jurisdiction exercised by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited in nature. The proceedings under Section 14 are intended to facilitate the secured creditor in obtaining possession of the secured assets and are not in the nature of adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties relating to the loan transaction. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was required to examine the application in the light of the statutory 4 requirements prescribed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the affidavit/declaration accompanying with the application. If the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found any deficiency or discrepancy in the documents, the same was required to be considered within the limited scope of Section 14 and, where necessary, the petitioner could have been called upon to cure the requisite deficiency. The learned Magistrate could not have entered into an adjudication of disputed question concerning the validity or otherwise of the loan documents as if exercising the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act afresh in accordance with law, on its own merits. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit