Pushplata IshwarversusThe Presiding Officer,

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2771 of 2025
     ======================================================
     Pushplata Ishwar Wife of Subhash Kumar Ishwar, Resident of Flat No.603,
     Rameshwar Apartment, Bhoot Nath Road, P.S. Agamkua, Dist- Patna-800006.

                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                     Versus
1.   The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ashiana Digha Road, P.S-
     Rajiv Nagar, Patna.
2.   Indian Bank, Corporate Office- PB No. 5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam
     Salai, Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014, Through its Chairman and Managing
     Director.
3.   The Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, 1st
     Floor, Budh Marg, P.S.- Kotwali, Patna Bihar 800001.
4.   Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Boring Road Branch D/34, Sahdeo Mahto
     Marg Sri Krishna Puri Boring Road, Patna-800001.
5.   M/s Mangal Murti Constructions, through its Partners, Amit Kumar Singh
     and Kavita Singh, 1st Floor Sri Ram Kunj Apartment, East Boring Canal
     Road, Patna- 800001.
6.   Amit Kumar Singh Son of Jogi Singh, Resident of 1st Floor, Flat No. B-21
     Sri Ram Kunj Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001.
7.   Kavita Singh Wife of Amit Kumar Singh, Resident of 1st Floor, Flat No. B-
     21 Sri Ram Kunj Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001.
8.   Elitefalcons Private Limited, Unit 101, Shriram Towers, Kankarbagh Colony
     More, 800020, through its Chairman and Managing Director.
9.   Gaurav Kumar Mishra Son of Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Resident of- Ward No.
     4, Near Durga Mandir, Pachiwari Tola Pator, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, Dis-
     trict- Darbhanga, presently posted as Executive Manager, Elitefalcons Pri-
     vate Limited.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Adv.
                                  Mr. Sunit Kumar, Advocate
                                  Mr.Nishant Kumar, Advocate
                                  Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
     For the Auction Purchaser:   Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                                  Mr. P.S. Mishra, Advocate
     For the Respondent/Bank:     Mr. Sanjay Singh Thakur, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
     CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 20-01-2026

                 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           2/17




         the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Offi-

         cer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in S.A. No. 287 of 2024

         whereby the SARFAESI application preferred by the petitioner

         has been dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for quash-

         ing the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent -Bank

         under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

         and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter

         referred to as “SARFAESI Act” ) and for issuance of a direction

         upon the respondent / Bank to cancel the auction sale of the

         subject property and to accept repayment of debts from the

         petitioner after settlement.

                2. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner is the

         owner and is in peaceful possession of Shop Nos. UG-04, UG-

         05, UG-06 and UG-06-A situated at the first floor of a multisto-

         ried building known as “Jaikriti Pearl Court”, located at Mauza-

         Dujra, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. - Buddha Colony, District –

         Patna having a super built-up area of approximately 1330 sq. ft.

         with a carpet area of about 900 sq. ft. which was duly

         purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated

         30.01.2016. The respondent no. 5, namely M/s Mangal Murti

         Construction through its partners Amit Kumar Singh (Respon-

         dent No. 6) and Kavita Singh (Respondent No. 7) approached
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           3/17




         the petitioner to associate with their business venture and made

         her a guarantor for the credit facilities availed by them from the

         respondent - Bank. In return, the said respondents assured and

         promised the petitioner of a regular annual payment of

         Rs. 35,00,000/- which amount was duly paid to her till the year

         2019. On the basis of such assurance the petitioner was made

         guarantor for multiple loan facilities sanctioned by the respon-

         dent -Bank. Her signatures were obtained on various bank docu-

         ments without furnishing any loan agreement, sanction letter or

         statement of accounts. The petitioner therefore remained com-

         pletely unaware of the multiplicity of loan accounts in respect

         of which she had been shown as guarantor.

                3. The repayment of the loan was secured by mortgage of

         flats belonging to Respondent No. 6 and the subject property of

         the petitioner. Since the year 2019 the respondent nos. 5 to 7

         stopped paying the assured annual return of Rs. 35 lacs to the

         petitioner and deliberately concealed the deteriorating financial

         condition of their firm. Subsequently, the respondent -Bank is-

         sued three separate notices dated 02.05.2023 to respondent no. 5

         in respect of three different loan accounts which were served

         upon the petitioner as guarantor claiming overdue amount of

         total Rs. 5,79,713/-. However, the respondent nos. 6 and 7
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           4/17




         assured the petitioner that the said notices could be ignored and

         were merely routine communications from the Bank.

                4. All of a sudden, the Authorized Officer of the respon-

         dent -Bank issued a demand notice dated 29.06.2024 under Sec-

         tion 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which was served upon

         respondent nos. 5 to 7 including the petitioner alleging that the

         two loan accounts had been declared Non-Performing Assets

         (NPA) on 27.06.2024 and demanded a total outstanding amount

         of Rs. 2,62,06,848.83 as on 29.06.2024 together with interest.

                5. On 28.08.2024, the respondent -Bank issued a posses-

         sion notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

         read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement)

         Rules, 2002 and took physical possession of the secured assets

         including the subject property.

                6. Being aggrieved by such action the petitioner filed S.A.

         No. 287 of 2024 before the DRT, Patna on 27.09.2024 challeng-

         ing the entire SARFAESI action. During pendency of the S.A.

         the respondent / Bank issued auction sale notice dated

         10.10.2024 and the date of sale was fixed on 13.11.2024. There-

         after petitioner filed an I.A. upon which an interim stay was

         granted by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Patna vide order dated

         04.11.2024 not to confirm the sale by the respondent -Bank till
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           5/17




         date of hearing. The respondent -Bank in its reply dated

         19.11.2024 filed before the DRT, Patna admitted that all the se-

         cured assets including the subject property had been sold

         through e-auction in three lots in favour of respondent no. 8.

         Consequently, the DRT, Patna directed the petitioner to file

         amendment application for impleadment of auction purchaser as

         a party in the        proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

         application dated 23.12.2024 seeking impleadment of respon-

         dent no. 8. However, without passing any order on the said ap-

         plication and in absence of the petitioner on 04.02.2025 the

         DRT, Patna passed the impugned final order dismissing the S.A.

         thereafter on the very next day i.e. 05.02.2025 sale certificate

         was issued in favour of respondent no. 8.

                7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the

         entire action initiated by the respondent -Bank under the

         SARFAESI Act is illegal and vitiated in law for the reason that

         the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 26D of the

         SARFAESI Act has not been complied. Section 26D clearly

         mandates that no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise

         any right under the SARFAESI Act unless the security interest is

         duly registered with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset

         Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (for short
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           6/17




         “CERSAI”). It is further argued that the alleged registration

         relied upon by the Bank is not only defective but misleading,

         inasmuch        as     the    petitioner’s   subject    property   has

         deliberately and mischievously been described in the name of

         the borrower though the same admittedly belongs to guarantor–

         petitioner and also the floor details have             incorrectly been

         mentioned, clearly manifesting a conscious attempt to misrepre-

         sent the identity of the secured asset so as to prejudice the

         lawful right and interest of the petitioner. Such incorrect and

         false particulars render the registration non-est in the eye of law

         and consequently all proceedings taken pursuant thereto are

         void ab initio.

                8. It has further been argued that the petitioner was ready

         and willing to liquidate the lawful outstanding dues from the

         very inception after due adjustment of the amount already real-

         ized by the respondent / Bank by sale of other secured assets.

         Despite such bona fide conduct, the respondent -Bank acted

         with undue haste and proceeded to auction the petitioner’s sub-

         ject property without granting any reasonable or meaningful op-

         portunity of redemption. Even while passing the impugned or-

         der dated 04.02.2025, the DRT, Patna completely failed to take

         into consideration the petitioner’s readiness and willingness to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           7/17




         clear the outstanding dues. It has further been submitted that

         Respondent No. 9 illegally filed a counter affidavit on behalf of

         respondent No. 8, a private limited company on 20.12.2024

         without any board resolution and without being formally im-

         pleaded as a party. On 18.12.2024, the learned DRT, Patna had

         permitted the petitioner for impleadment of the auction pur-

         chaser, however, acting in collusion with the respondent -Bank

         the auction purchaser hurriedly filed an unauthorized counter af-

         fidavit even prior to formal impleadment. The DRT, Patna relied

         upon such unauthorized pleadings while dismissing the S.A No.

         287 / 2024 and that too behind the back of the petitioner in her

         absence and without affording any reasonable opportunity of

         hearing in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice

         rendering the impugned order wholly unsustainable in law and

         the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that re-

         spondent Bank has failed to disclose the sale price of the proper-

         ties of the borrower sold by the respondent-Bank.

                9. The petitioner had executed a registered lease deed

         dated 05.03.2024 much prior to the declaration of the loan

         account as NPA on 27.06.2024 and also prior to the issuance of

         the demand notice dated 29.06.2024 under Section 13(2) of the

         SARFAESI Act. It has been contended that the lawful posses-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           8/17




         sion of the secured asset was with the lessee and not with the

         petitioner and the lessee was having a legally enforceable right

         to continue in possession during the subsistence of the lease.

         Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court rendered in PHR Invent Educational Society

         vs. UCO Bank and Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 and

         Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai

         reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1.

                10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

         respondents, at the outset, submits that the present writ petition

         is wholly misconceived, premature and not maintainable in law

         inasmuch as the petitioner has an efficacious and statutory alter-

         native remedy available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act

         before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad

         against the impugned final order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the

         DRT, Patna in S.A. No. 287 of 2024. It has further been submit-

         ted that the entire SARFAESI proceedings have been under-

         taken strictly in accordance with law. The loan accounts were

         duly declared NPA on 27.06.2024 the demand notice under Sec-

         tion 13(2) dated 29.06.2024 was served upon the petitioner yet

         no objection or representation as contemplated under Section

         13(3-A) was ever filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, possession
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                           9/17




         notice was issued and symbolic possession was taken in accor-

         dance with the statutory rules. The petitioner chose to remain

         silent throughout the statutory process and is now attempting to

         derail the lawful recovery proceedings by invoking the extraor-

         dinary writ jurisdiction.

              11. Learned counsel further submits that after dismissal of

         S.A. No. 287 of 2024 the Sale Certificate dated 05.02.2025 has

         already been issued in favour of the auction purchaser. Conse-

         quently, the prayer for staying the confirmation of sale or is-

         suance of sale certificate has become infructuous and is not

         maintainable. It is also submitted that the petitioner has ap-

         proached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands on account of

         the petitioner’s lack of bona fides, suppression of material facts

         and deliberate misrepresentation of the record. The petitioner

         has taken self-contradictory stand throughout the writ petition.

         In paragraph no. 4 the petitioner unequivocally admits accep-

         tance of liability, however, in paragraph no. 8 she pleads igno-

         rance of the very loan accounts for which she admittedly stood

         as guarantor. Such contradictory pleadings are not accidental but

         deliberate and are intended to mislead this Hon’ble Court. It is

         an admitted position that the petitioner was regularly receiving a

         substantial amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- per annum till the year
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          10/17




         2019 from the borrower, thereby actively enjoying the fruits of

         the very transaction which she now seeks to disown. The peti-

         tioner has also falsely pleaded that an application for implead-

         ment of the auction purchaser was filed whereas the application

         dated 23.12.2024 was for impleading one Arti Kumari and not

         respondent no. 8. Such deliberate suppression and misrepresen-

         tation disentitles the petitioner from seeking any discretionary

         relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

             12. Learned counsel next submits that the allegation regard-

         ing non-registration of security interest under Section 26-D of

         the SARFAESI Act is wholly false and mischievous. The se-

         cured assets were duly registered with CERSAI and this fact

         stands reflected from Annexure -9/R appended to the Bank’s

         counter affidavit filed before the DRT. The plea relating to the

         alleged lease is equally misconceived and legally untenable. The

         petitioner’s further contention that the CERSAI registration is

         defective because it reflects the name of the borrower is equally

         misconceived and legally untenable. The prescribed CERSAI

         format mandates disclosure of the borrower’s particulars even

         where the secured asset belongs to a guarantor that is why name

         of Amit Singh was there. The alleged lease deed is neither a

         valid registered document nor created prior to the mortgage. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          11/17




         lessee has already initiated independent proceedings before the

         DRT in S.A. No. 287 of 2024 and has also filed a separate writ

         petition being CWJC No. 6517 of 2025. Therefore, the peti-

         tioner cannot espouse the cause of a third party who is not even

         a party to the present proceedings.

                13. It has further been submitted that the auction process

         was conducted in a fair, transparent and competitive manner and

         fetched a price substantially higher than the reserve price. The

         subject property was put to auction at a reserve price of Rs.

         1,78,00,000/- and was ultimately sold for Rs. 2,44,60,000/- i.e.

         approximately 40% higher thereby demolishing the allegations

         of undervaluation or mala fide.

             14. Lastly, it has been submitted that it is a settled principle

         of law that where a statute provides a complete machinery for

         redressal of grievances, the High Court ought not to exercise

         jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India partic-

         ularly in matters arising out of recovery of public dues by banks

         and financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act. In support

         of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgments

         of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of United

         Bank of India versus Satyawati Tandon reported in (2010) 8

         SCC 110; Narayan Chandra Ghosh versus UCO Bank &
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          12/17




         Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 548, Celir LLP versus Bafna

         Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2024) 2 SCC1 and

         Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu reported in

         (2023) 2 SCC 168.

              15. Learned counsel for the auction purchaser argued that fi-

         nal order has been passed by the DRT and after passing of the fi-

         nal order sale certificate has been issued and as such as per the

         judgment in the case of Bafna Motors (supra) reported in (2024)

         2 SCC 1 the High Court may not exercise its extra ordinary

         jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

            16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have care-

         fully perused the materials available on record.

             17. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a self-contained code pro-

         viding a complete mechanism of redressal including remedies

         under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme

         Court in the case of United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tan-

         don reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 has held that High Court

         should ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of

         the Constitution of India if an effective remedy is available to

         the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater

         rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees and

         other types of public money and the dues of banks and other
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          13/17




         financial institutions. It has been held by the Apex Court that

         while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the ac-

         tion taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court

         must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament

         and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto

         themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive

         procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitu-

         tion of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any

         aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court

         must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the

         Constitution of India, a person must exhaust the remedies avail-

         able under the relevant statute.


            18. The Supreme Court in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of

         India & Ors., reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1129 in para-

         graph no. 12 relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in

         A.V Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay versus

         Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani reported in AIR 1961 SC 1506

         has held that this Court was of the opinion that once a petitioner

         has due to his own fault disabled himself from availing a statu-

         tory remedy, the discretionary remedy under Article 226 may

         not be available.


             19. In the present case, the petitioner has already availed the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          14/17




         statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act and upon

         dismissal of S.A. No. 287 of 2024 an efficacious appellate

         remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is admittedly

         available before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,

         Allahabad.


              20. The contention of the petitioner that the security interest

         was not validly registered with CERSAI and that the registration

         contains incorrect particulars thereby vitiating the entire

         SARFAESI action and in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court

         judgment reported in PHR Invent Educational Society vs UCO

         Bank (2024) 6 SCC 579 and Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar

         of Trademarks, Mumbai the High Court can entertain the writ

         application is not acceptable. The judgment relied upon by the

         petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the case inasmuch as

         the respondent- Bank has produced documentary evidence

         showing registration of the secured asset with CERSAI. Section

         26-D mandates registration of the security interest, not perfec-

         tion of title. The secured asset of the borrower and the guarantor

         as per the format prescribed for registration is recorded as the

         asset of the borrower because liability of the borrower and the

         guarantor are joint.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          15/17




                 21. With regard to the violation of principles of natural

         justice, this Court finds that the petitioner was duly aware of the

         proceedings before the DRT, Patna and had actively participated

         therein. The grievance relates to filing of pleadings by the

         auction purchaser prior to impleadment, non-deciding of the

         impleadment application and issuance of sale certificate are

         matters which can be effectively agitated before the appellate

         forum under Section 18 of the Act.


               22. In Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd.

         reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 after surveying the entire law on

         interference with auctions by placing reliance upon several

         judgments, the Supreme Court has categorically held in para-

         graph 91 as under:-


                            “Thus, what is discernible from the above

                   is that it is the duty of the courts to zealously pro-

                   tect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The

                   courts ought to be loath in interfering with

                   auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very

                   object and purpose behind auctions and deter

                   public confidence and participation in the same.”


           23. In Celir LLP Versus Sumati Prasad Bafna and Others.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                          16/17




         reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 3727 in paragraph no. 218 it

         has been categorically held that:-


                             “Any sale by auction or other public pro-

                   curement methods once already confirmed or

                   concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered

                   with lightly except on grounds that go to the

                   core of such sale process, such as either being

                   collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate

                   pricing or        underbidding. Mere irregularity or

                   deviation from a rule which does not have any

                   fundamental procedural error does not take

                   away the foundation of authority for such pro-

                   ceeding. In such cases, courts in particular

                   should be mindful to refrain entertaining any

                   ground for challenging an auction which either

                   could have been taken earlier before the sale

                   was conducted and confirmed or where no sub-

                   stantial injury has been caused on account of

                   such irregularity.”


            24. This Court further finds that the auction has already been

         concluded and the Sale Certificate have been issued on
             Patna High Court CWJC No.2771 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
                                                       17/17




                      05.02.2025 in favour of respondent no. 8, the rights of a bona

                      fide third-party purchaser have crystallised and attained finality.

                      Any interference at this stage would frustrate the very object of

                      the recovery legislation, undermine public confidence and deter

                      participation in auctions without exhaustion of the statutory

                      appellate remedy would seriously prejudice third-party rights

                      and defeat the very object of the SARFAESI Act which

                      mandates expeditious recovery of public funds.


                            25. Accordingly, this Court holds that the present writ peti-

                      tion is a clear attempt to circumvent the statutory appellate rem-

                      edy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and none of the

                      grounds urged disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting

                      interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.


                            26. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

                      present writ application is disposed.




                                               (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Praful/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                25-11-2025
Uploading Date          20-01-2026
Transmission Date       N.A.