1 2026:CGHC:18692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1839 of 2026 1 - Mrs. Sarika Dixit W/o Shri Vinod Dixit Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Sardar Patel Ward, Bodri, P.O. Chakarbhata Camp, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vinod Dixit S/o Late Shri Daulal Dixit Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Sardar Patel Ward, Bodri, P.O. Chakarbhata Camp, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anish Dixit S/o Shri Vinod Dixit Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Sardar Patel Ward, Bodri, P.O. Chakarbhata Camp, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. …Petitioner(s) versus 1 - India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited Through Its Authorized Officer, Office No. 517, 5th Floor, Lal Ganga Business Park, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Of Cg Through Chief Judicial Magistrate, District And Session Court Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Tehsildar Bodri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Bhagel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.04.27 15:06:11 +0530 2 23/04/2026 1. This petitioner has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- (i)May this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to Quash and set aside the Entire Proceedings with respect to the illegal and arbitrary classification of the petitioners account as NPA and the consequent illegal SARFAESI proceedings initiated by respondent no. 1 and any such notices of similar nature issued by the respondent bank, in the interest of justice. (ii) May this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to Quash and set aside the impugned letters (Annexure P-1 and P-2), respectively, in the interest of justice. (iii) May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to restrain the respondents from taking or proceeding with physical possession of the petitioner's secured properties, without following due process of law, in the interest of justice. (iv) May this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other writ/order/relief in favor of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court may deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent bank has arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of statutory provisions classified the petitioner’s loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiated coercive proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, despite substantial repayment of the loan with only ₹1,21,000/- alleged to be outstanding; it is alleged that while the 3 respondents were simultaneously negotiating with the petitioner, they acted in bad faith by obtaining an order dated 19.01.2026 from the Court of the learned CJM for dispossession of the petitioner from the mortgaged property, and thereafter issued consequential orders dated 22.01.2026 and 08.04.2026 for taking physical possession, which are stated to be mechanical, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the RBI’s IRAC norms as well as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 13(2), 13(3A) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rules 3 and 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned actions are illegal, arbitrary, procedurally flawed and violative of principles of natural justice, having been initiated without proper compliance of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, particularly Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4) and 14, as well as the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and the RBI’s IRAC norms, including failure to duly classify and communicate the account as NPA and to serve statutory notices; because the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity of hearing and their representations were mechanically rejected, while the respondent bank acted in bad faith by simultaneously negotiating and pursuing coercive measures, including obtaining dispossession orders by misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already discharged the entire loan 4 liability, however, the respondent bank has failed to issue the No Objection Certificate. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondent bank to consider the petitioner’s case and to issue the requisite No Objection Certificate in accordance with law. Further, the action of taking possession of a residential house for recovery of a minor outstanding amount is grossly disproportionate, violative of the petitioners’ right to shelter under Article 21 and right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India; because the petitioners’ statutory right of redemption under Section 13(8) was disregarded despite part payments being accepted; and because the entire process, including possession proceedings and orders passed thereunder, is mechanical, without jurisdiction and amounts to abuse of statutory powers, rendering the same liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents respectfully submit that the present writ petition is misconceived, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal; it is contended that the loan account of the petitioner was rightly classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) strictly in accordance with the RBI guidelines after persistent default in repayment, and all statutory procedures under Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4) and 14 of the Act read with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 were duly 5 complied with, including issuance and service of demand notice, consideration and disposal of objections, and lawful taking of possession pursuant to the order passed by the learned CJM; the respondents deny any violation of principles of natural justice or allegations of bad faith, and submit that mere part payments do not cure default nor create any right to stall recovery proceedings; it is further submitted that the action taken is proportionate, lawful and within the statutory framework, and the petitioner, having failed to discharge the admitted liability, cannot invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction to frustrate recovery proceedings; hence, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a limited direction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned bank along with all relevant documents on or before 11th May, 2026. Upon such appearance, the respondent bank shall consider the case of the petitioner, and if it is found that the entire loan amount has been duly discharged, the No Objection Certificate, as sought by the petitioner, shall be issued in his favour within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. Till then, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at 6 liberty to approach this Court again, if any cause of action survives or subsists. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s) this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Arpan