30.09.2026 Sl. No. 7 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 26132 of 2026 Amarendra Kumar & Anr. Vs AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Ors. Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Keshav Daruka. …for the petitioners Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Ms. Simrin Hussain. …for respondent nos. 1 & 2 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the justifiability of the classification of two overdraft accounts of the petitioners as NPAs. In addition, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the notices issued by the secured creditor under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioners further pray for an appropriate order setting aside both the aforesaid notices. 2. At the outset, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Bank, assisted by Mr. Ganguly, raises the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition. Referring to Section 34 of the Act, he submits that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and that no injunction shall be granted by any court or any authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in 2 pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. He submits that, in a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions which are primarily preferred to interdict recovery proceedings initiated by the secured creditor in respect of the secured assets. 3. In rebuttal, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate representing the petitioners, submits that although Section 34 of the Act creates a bar on the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine, such provision cannot operate as a bar upon a Constitutional Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 4. 4. He submits that Section 13(2) of the Act contemplates two circumstances, namely, default in repayment of the secured debt or any instalment thereof by the borrower and classification of the loan account or overdraft facility as a non- performing asset (NPA). According to him, classification of a loan account as an NPA gives rise to an independent cause of action and, therefore, a writ petition challenging such classification is maintainable, particularly when there is no efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner. He further submits that, in an application preferred under Section 17 of the Act, the learned Tribunal is empowered only to examine the legality and justification of the measures taken 3 under Section 13(4) of the Act and has no jurisdiction to examine whether the classification of the loan account as an NPA was justified. Thus, according to him, the action of classifying a loan account as an NPA falls outside the purview of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act and, consequently, a writ petition challenging such action would be maintainable. In support of his contention, he relies upon a decision reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2397 (Olive Tree Retail Private Limited & Anr. v. South India Bank Limited & Anr.). 5. In response thereto, Mr. Banerjee seeks to distinguish the said decision in Olive Tree Retail Private Limited & Anr. (supra), inter alia, on the ground that, in that case, the borrower was an MSME who had approached the secured creditor seeking restructuring of the loan account. However, without considering such request, the secured creditor proceeded to issue a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Having regard to such factual conspectus, the learned Coordinate Bench, in Olive Tree Retail Private Limited & Anr. (supra), came to the conclusion that the legality of the classification of an account as an NPA was not amenable to challenge under Section 17 of the Act. 6. Mr. Chakraborty submits that, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition may be maintained where there is a violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice, the impugned action is without jurisdiction or arbitrary, or the vires of any statutory provision is under challenge. In the given case, he claims that the 4 fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated since their loan account has been illegally classified as NPA. 7. However, in the course of hearing, Mr. Chakraborty submits that the petitioners may be permitted to approach the learned Tribunal, subject to condonation of the delay, with liberty to raise all the issues before the learned Tribunal. He submits that the present writ petition was filed immediately upon issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has also been issued. 8. Mr. Ganguly has informed the Court that the secured creditor has also invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and obtained an order for taking possession of the secured asset. 9. Therefore, since the petitioners intend to approach the learned Tribunal and since the present writ petition was preferred prior to the issuance of the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, challenging, inter alia, the action of the secured creditor in classifying the loan accounts as NPAs and the subsequent order passed under Section 14 of the Act, and considering that the petitioners have diligently pursued the remedy before this Court, this Court, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, directs that, if the petitioners present an application under Section 17 of the Act before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from date, the learned Tribunal shall consider and decide the said application on its own merits in accordance with law, 5 without non-suiting the petitioners solely on the ground of delay in its presentation. 10. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise before the learned Tribunal all the issues raised in the present writ petition, in addition to such other issues as may be available to them in accordance with law. 11. It is clarified that this order is passed having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any future case. 12. With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)