ALAUDDIN AHMED v. BANK OF BARODA, REHABARI BRANCH AND 2 ORS.
CRP(IO)/160/2026 · 2026-05-19
Kalyan Rai Surana
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6561 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6561 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010066232026
2026:GAU-AS:6993
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/160/2026 ALAUDDIN AHMED S/O LATE MAMTAJ ALI, R/O NAYANPUR, HOUSE NO. 6, BYE LANE NO. 2, P.O.- DISPUR, P.S.- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781005 VERSUS BANK OF BARODA, REHABARI BRANCH AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, HOUSE NO. 28, FIRST FLOOR, A.M. ROAD, SUHAGPUR, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781007 2:CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF BARODA REHABARI BRANCH HOUSE NO 28 FIRST FLOOR A.M. ROAD SUHAGPUR KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI- 781007 3:REGIONAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781003 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. B HUSSAIN, MR A H TOUFIQ Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 20.05.2026 Heard Mr. B. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.01.2026, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, thereby dismissing I.A. No. 43/2026. 3. The petitioner, by filing the I.A. has assailed the SARFAESI proceedings and the steps taken by respondent No. 1 bank and the petitioner has filed S.A. No. 142/2025. In connection with the said S.A. No. 142/2025, an interlocutory application, which was registered as I.A. No. 43/2026 was filed under Section 17 read with Section 19 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for stay of the third illegal possession notice dated 08.01.2026 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is projected that two previous notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were withdrawn. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by virtue of the said notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the respondent No. 1 bank was seeking to take over possession of the residential flat along with land. It is further projected that the petitioner had never availed any loan and he was not the mortgagor of the property sought to be taken over by respondent No. 1 bank. However, the respondent No. 1 bank continued to issue the recovery notices under Section 13(4).
Accordingly, it is submitted that apart from moving the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. No. 142/2025, the petitioner has also filed T.S. No. 486/2025, which is pending for disposal before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Page No.# 3/5 It is also submitted that along with the said suit an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 1227/2025 and in the said case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by an order dated 22.12.2025 granted an ad interim injunction restraining respondent No. 1 bank and others from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit property or land till the pendency of the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the event the interim protection to the petitioner is not granted by this Court, the petitioner is likely to lose his property though he is not the borrower or the guarantor of the said loan. It is submitted that a fictitious loan was granted to someone by manipulating records showing that the petitioner is the borrower. 6. The prayer of the petitioner in I.A. No. 43/2026 is extracted below:
“Under the above fact and circumstances it is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Honour would be pleased to pass appropriate stay order on subsequent event and fresh Notice dated 08-01-2026 issued U/S 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and action of the Bank and restraining the Bank from taking illegal forceful possession of the residential Flat and land of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order granting relief and protection to the property of the petitioner for the ends of justice and/ or pass any such further appropriate order or orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice.”
7.
The prayer No. 4 in T.S. 486/2025 is also extracted below:
“To issue permanent injunction restraining the defendant Bank from taking any action against the plaintiff and his suit property on the basis of fabricated mortgage or from taking over possession of the suit land and property”
8. Therefore, in two parallel proceedings, the petitioner is seeking similar
Page No.# 4/5 relief to restrain the respondent No. 1 bank from taking action against the petitioner and the suit property. 9. As it is noticed that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3 Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by its order dated 22.12.2025, has already issued an ad interim injunction restraining respondent No. 1 bank from taking any coercive action in respect of taking possession of the suit land or flat till the next date of listing, the Court finds no reason to entertain this challenge and to pass an interim order of the nature which has already been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 10. That apart, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, any person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is entitled to file an appeal before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, as the statutory alternative remedy has been provided, coupled with the fact that the Civil Court is already in seisin of the challenge made against the purported action of the respondent No. 1 bank, this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the challenge to the impugned order dated 30.01.2026, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, by which I.A. No. 43/2026 was dismissed. 11. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents. 12. This order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing the statutory alternative remedy available. 13. The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order to the learned Debts
Page No.# 5/5 Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati to make it a part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant