Patna High Court

Roshan KumarversusThe UCO Bank

Decided: 7 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The bank must issue the sale certificate and hand over physical possession despite the pending S.A. case, unless a stay order is in place.

Summary

Roshan Kumar purchased four parcels of land through an e‑auction conducted by UCO Bank on 27‑Nov‑2024 and paid the full bid amount. The bank, however, has not issued the sale certificates nor handed over possession, claiming that an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in S.A. No. 309 of 2023 makes the sale subject to the pending case. The High Court examined whether the bank could lawfully withhold the certificates and possession merely because the matter is sub‑judice before the DRT. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (2024) 2 SCC 1, which declares Rule 9(6) of the 2002 SARFAESI Rules a mandatory provision, the Court held that, absent a stay order, the bank is duty‑bound to issue the sale certificate and deliver possession. The petition was allowed, directing the bank to comply within eight weeks, subject to the final outcome of S.A. 309 of 2023, and to file a Section 14 SARFAESI application for possession.

Issues considered

Can a bank refuse to issue a sale certificate and hand over possession of a property sold at e‑auction on the ground that a related S.A. case is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal?
Does Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 impose a mandatory duty on the bank to issue the sale certificate once full payment is made and no stay exists?
Is a writ under Article 226 appropriate when the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act?

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — s. 13(8), 14, 17
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — s. Rule 9(1), Rule 9(2), Rule 9(6)

Subjects

e‑auction
sale certificate
possession
SARFAESI Act
Rule 9
mandamus
Debt Recovery Tribunal
Section 14
Section 17
Article 226

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3859 of 2025
======================================================
Roshan Kumar, S/o Lalan Choudhary, R/o Ward No.- 23, Hanuman Chowk,
Kasba, P.O.- Kasba Bazar, District- Purnia, Bihar- 854330.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The UCO Bank through its Authorized Officer, Zonal Office, Begusarai,
Sona Jageshwar Complex, Traffic Chowk, District- Begusarai, Bihar.
2. The Chief Manager, U.C.O. Bank, IOC Township Branch, Capasia Chowk,
P.O.- Refinery Township, District- Begusarai, Bihar-851117.
3. The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Sona Jageshwar Complex,
Traffic Chowk, Begusarai, Bihar- 851101.
4. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, through its Chairperson, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Abhishek, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Solicitor General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

5 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“a. Issuance of a direction, order or writ,
including writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding/directing the concerned
respondent authorities to issue the
Certificate of Sale of the Properties
bearing Khata No. 30, Khesra No. 142
(m), Thana No. 347, Area-8.5 Dhur (Title
Deed No. 7603), Khata No. 30, Khesra
No. 142, Thana No. 347, Area- 8.5 Dhur
(Title Deed No. 7604), Khata No. 30,
Khesra No. 142, Thana No. 347, Area- 10
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
2/9

Dhur (Title Deed No.13533) and Khata
No. 30, Khesra No. 142 (m), Thana No.
347, Area-10 Dhur (Title Deed No.
13534) in favor of the Petitioner, who
acquired the said property through a e-
auction held on 27.11.2024, conducted by
the Authorized Officer, UCO Bank, Zonal
Office, Begusarai.
b. Issuance of a direction, order or writ,
including writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding/directing the concerned
respondent authorities to deliver the
physical possession of Properties bearing
Khata No. 30, Khesm No. 142 (m), Thana
No. 347, Area-8.5 Dhur (Title Deed No.
7603), Khata No. 30, Khesra No. 142,
Thana No. 347, Area- 8.5 Dhur (Title
Deed No. 7604), Khata No. 30, Khesra
No. 142, Thana No. 347, Area 10 Dhur
(Title Deed No.13533) and Khata No. 30,
Khesra No. 42 (m), Thana No. 347, Area-
10 Dhur (Title Deed No. 13534) to the
Petitioner without any undue delay.
c. Issuance of a direction, order or writ,
including writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding/directing the concerned
respondent authorities to provide
adequate compensation to the Petitioner
for causing mental agony and distress.
d. Any other relief/reliefs that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
3/9

Petitioner may be found to be entitled to
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that, pursuant to the advertisement issued by

the Respondent-Bank, the petitioner has participated in the

auction and being the highest bidder the sale was knocked in his

favour. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the petitioner

has deposited the entire sale auction amount. However the

Respondent-Bank till date has not issued the sale certificate nor

handed over the physical possession of the subject property to

the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the matter is

squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a case of Celir LLP versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai)

Private Ltd. and Others reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1. Learned

counsel therefore seeks a direction from this Hon’ble Court to

direct to the Respondent-Bank to issue the sale certificate and

also to hand over the physical possession of the subject property

to the petitioner at the earliest.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the Respondent-Bank has vehemently opposed the

very maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel

submits that the petitioner has impleaded the borrowers/
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
4/9

mortgager of the subject property in question. Further it is stated

that the S.A. Case No. 309 of 2023 filed by the borrowers is

pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. That the

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna vide order dated 25.11.2024 has

passed the interim order wherein the e-auction sale that took

place on 27.11.2024, shall be subject to the final outcome of the

S.A. Case No. 309 of 2023. Learned counsel submits that due to

the interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Patna, the Respondent-Bank is unable to issue the sale

certificate and hand over the physical possession of the subject

property to the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner is

also a party to S.A. No. 309 of 2023 and therefore, the petitioner

may be relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, for

availing the remedies as available to him under the law, i.e., for

issuance of sale certificate for seeking physical possession of the

subject property.

5. Admittedly, in the present case, the facts are not

in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration is as

to whether the bank which has conducted the auction can refuse

to hand over the physical possession of the property to the

petitioner solely on the ground that S.A. No. 309 of 2023 is

pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. It is no
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
5/9

doubt true that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna has observed

that if any e-auction sale takes place, the same shall be subject

to the final outcome of the S.A. pending before it, but with all

due respect to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the Respondent-Bank the said stand is totally erroneous, unless

and until there is any stay order restraining the Respondent-

Bank from issuing the sale certificate and handing over the

physical possession of the subject property, the authorities

cannot avoid their responsibility of issuing the sale certificate

and handing over the physical possession of the subject property

to the petitioner. The Respondent-Bank, having conducted the

auction and realized the full sale consideration from the

petitioner, cannot refrain from issuing the sale certificate and

handing over the physical possession of the subject property

solely on the ground that the matter is sub judice before the

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

a case of Celir LLP versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private

Ltd. and Others reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 has held as under:-

“103. It is an admitted fact that the entire
bid amount was paid by the auction-
purchaser as observed at SCC OnLine Bom
para 10 of the impugned order2. Thus, the
Bank was legally bound to issue the sale
certificate as per the language of Rule 9(6)
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
6/9

of the 2002 Rules. The said provision
employs the phrase "shall". Thus, it is an
instance of mandatory provision. There is
nothing more in the realm of law that the
auction-purchaser can do once he has made
the entire payment to the Bank. The fact
that the respondent Bank failed to issue the
sale certificate raises serious concerns,
when there was no stay by any competent
forum. Even otherwise the general conduct
of the respondent Bank has not been
satisfactory. Once the entire bid price is
paid and there is no stay granted by any
forum known to law, the Bank is duty-bound
to issue a valid sale certificate and hand
over the physical possession of the secured
asset to the auction-purchaser.”

6. Further at paras 110, 110.1, 110.2, 110.3, 110.4,

110.5, 110.6 and 110.7, it has held as under:-

“110. We summarise our final conclusion as
under:
110.1. The High Court was not justified in
exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution more particularly
when the borrowers had already availed the
aiternative remedy available to them under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
110.2. The confirmation of sale by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
7/9

Bank under Rule 9(2) of the 2002 Rules
invests the successful auction-purchaser
with a vested right to obtain a certificate of
sale of the immovable property in the form
given in Appendix V to the Rules i.e. in
accordance with Rule 9(6) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
110.3. In accordance with the unamended
Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the
right of the borrower to redeem the secured
asset was available till the sale or transfer
of such secured asset. In other words, the
borrower's right of redemption did not
stand terminated on the date of the auction-
sale of the secured asset itself and remained
alive till the transfer was completed in
favour of the auction-purchaser, by
registration of the sale certificate and
delivery of possession of the secured asset.
However, the amended provisions of Section
13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear
that the right of the borrower to redeem the
secured asset stands extinguished
thereunder on the very date of publication
of the notice for public auction under Rule
9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right of
redemption available to the borrower under
the present statutory regime is drastically
curtailed and would be available only till
the date of publication of the notice under
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
8/9

Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not till the
completion of the sale or transfer of the
secured asset in favour of the auction-
purchaser.
110.4. The Bank after having confirmed the
sale under Rule 9(2) of the 2002 Rules
could not have withheld the sale certificate
under Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules, and
entered into a private arrangement with a
borrower.
110.5. The High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution could not have applied
equitable considerations to overreach the
outcome contemplated by the statutory
auction process prescribed under the
SARFAESI Act.
110.6. The two decisions of the Telangana
High Court in Concern Readymix¹¹ and
Amme Srisailam¹ do not lay down the
correct position of law. In the same way, the
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Pal Alloys 13 also does not lay
down the correction position of law.
110.7. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Sri Sai Annadhatha Polymers
22 and the decision of the Telangana High
Court in K. V. V. Prasad Rao Gupta 25 lay
down the correct position of law while
interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of
the SARFAESI Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3859 of 2025(5) dt.07-05-2026
9/9

7. Having regard to the above, the present writ

petition is allowed. The Respondent-Bank is directed to hand

over the certificate of sale in favour of the petitioner and also the

physical possession of the subject property as expeditiously as

possibly preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the handing

over the physical possession of the subject property and sale

certificate in favour of the petitioner shall be subject to the final

outcome of S.A. 309 of 2023. The Respondent-Bank shall

forthwith file an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI

Act before the concerned District Magistrate for taking physical

possession of the subject property and handing over the same to

the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Kumar Abhishek