2026:JHHC:5348 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.1158 of 2026 ---- 1. Saroj Sharma, aged about 51 years, wife of Sri Anil Kumar Sharma; 2. Anil Kumar Sharma, aged about 63 years, son of Late Mishri Prasad Sharma; Both resident of H.No.D/188, A Block, Khutadih, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum-831011. …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi; through its Registrar, having office at 5th Floor, Pragati Sadan, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 2. Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi having office at 5th Floor, Pragati Sadan, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 3. State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its office at Corporate Office at State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, P.O.+P.S.- Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Maharashtra) and one of its local/branch office, amongst other places, is at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), 4th Floor, Main Branch Building, Court Compound, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District – Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand); through its Authorised Officer: 4. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), 4th Floor, Main Branch Building, Court Compound, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District – Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand); 5. M/s BSS Acme Industries Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No.R- 13, Industrial Area Royam, Village-Royam, Jadugoda, P.O. & P.S.- Royam, District-East Singhbhum-832106 (Jharkhand); 6. Baibhav Kumar Mishra, son of Kamal Kant Mishra, Director/Gurantor, M/s BSS Acme Industries Private Limited, having address as Qr. No.L5/56, I.C. Road, Kadma, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum-831005 (Jharkhand); 7. Pawan Kumar Rajak, son of Suresh Rajak, Director/Gurantor, M/s BSS Acme Industries Private Limited, having address at House No.21, New Rani Kudar, Road No.2, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, District-East Singhbhum- 831005 Town Jamshedpur, (Jharkhand); 8. Saroj Devi, wife of Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Director/Gurantor, M/s BSS Acme Industries Private Limited, having address at Harhar Guttu, Krishna Puri, Near Devta Bhawan, P.O.-Raharguttu, P.S.-Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum-831002 (Jharkhand). 2026:JHHC:5348 Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.1158 of 2026 …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. M.K. Sinha, Adv. ---- 02/Dated: 24th February, 2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “(i) commanding upon the respondent State Bank of India and its authority to not to proceed further under the sale notice dated 16.1.2026 (as contained in Annexure-7 series) issued under the signature of the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi till the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi becomes functional; AND/OR (ii) an order may be passed staying the operation of the sale notice dated 16.1.2026 (as contained in Annexure-7 series) issued under the signature of the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi till the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi becomes functional; AND/OR (iii) alternatively, be further be pleased to quash/set aside, with all consequences, the notices dated 16.1.2026.and 17.1.2026 (as contained in Annexure-7 series) both issued under the signature of the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi and the preceding notices dated 19.4.2025 and 21.4.2025 (as contained in Annexure-5 series) both issued under the signature of the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ranchi.” 2. The present case is being taken up as Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi is not functional. The purpose of entertaining the petition is for grant of interim relief. 3. The transaction in question is admittedly a commercial transaction between the parties. The only ground urged before this Court is alleged improper valuation of the secured asset. This Court is of the considered view that such a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and, by itself, does not constitute a valid ground for staying the process initiated under the SARFAESI Act. 4. It is a settled principle of law that mere filing of a writ petition does not confer a right to interim protection. Grant of stay in financial matters, 2026:JHHC:5348 Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.1158 of 2026 particularly in recovery proceedings initiated by secured creditors, must be exercised with circumspection so as not to frustrate statutory recovery mechanisms. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition, accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of reserving liberty with the petitioner to work out their remedies in accordance with law. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 24th February, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 25.02.2026