Central Bank of India vs Shri Satish Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6319 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC010209632023
======================================================
Central Bank of India Jhauganj Branch, Patna City, Patna, represented
through its Branch Manager, Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, aged about 29 years,
son of Sri Uma Shankar Singh, by Gender - Male, resident of Jaganpura, P.O.
- Ramkrishna Nagar, P.S. Ramkrishna Nagar, District - Patna (Bihar), PIN -
800027.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Shri Satish Kumar Son of Shri Raghunandan Prasad, resident of Nehru Tola,
P.O. - Begumpur, P.S. - Chowk, District- Patna (Bihar), PIN - 800009.
2. Rahmatulla, Son of Nabi Hasan, proprietor of M/s R.T. Enterprises, resident
of Patliputra Building, Kadam Kuan, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District - Patna
(Bihar).
3. The Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, 28,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Dardhanga Colony, Tagore Town, Prayagraj, Uttar
Pradesh - 211002.
4. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, 2nd Floor, A, B and
F Wing, Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya, Karmchari Parisar (GPOA),
Ashiana-Digha Road, Patna - 800025 (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : M/s Shiv Pratap
Palak,
Uditya Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent No.2: N/s S.Qaiser Hasan
Md. Kamil Akhtar, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-10-2026
I.A. No. 1 of 2026:
1. I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is filed to amend the
prayer portion, at paragraph 1 of the Writ petition
due to the subsequent developments as
mentioned at para 1(IV).

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
2/14
2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is hereby
allowed, amending the prayer portion. The reliefs
mentioned in paragraph No. 1(IV) thereof would
form part of the Writ petition.
C.W.J.C. No. 6319 of 2023
3. That the present Writ application has
been filed for the following reliefs:-
"I. For issuance of appropriate
order(s), direction(s) or Writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the final order dated
22.11.2022 passed by the Ld. Chairperson,
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad, in Appeal Dy. No. 927/2022
(Annexure 13) whereby and whereunder
the Ld. Chairperson of the Appellate
Tribunal has held and directed that in case
the Appellant/ Petitioner has any grievance
in allowing the application for condonation
of delay, he may file appropriate application
before the Tribunal below;
II. For issuance of appropriate
order(s), direction(s) or Writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order dated
09.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Presiding
Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in
S.A. No. 44/2017 whereby and whereunder
the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Patna has wrongfully

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
3/14
condoned a delay of 2080 days in filing of
Appeal No. 44/2017 under section 17 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, for
brevity's sake, referred to as "the
Securitisation Act"); and
III. For grant of any other
appropriate relief(s) to which the petitioner
may be found entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
IV. For issuance of appropriate
order(s), direction(s) or Writ(s) in the nature
of certiorari quashing the final order dated
14.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Presiding
Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal. Patna in S.
A. No. 44 of 2017 whereby and whereunder
the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Patna had proceeded to
hear and finally decide the S. A. No. 44 of
2017 during the pendency of the Writ
petition."
4. The brief facts culled out of the Writ
Petition are that the petitioner, Central Bank of
India, had sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.
3,00,000/- to Respondent No. 1 in the month of
March 2003, secured by an equitable mortgage

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
4/14
of his immovable property. Upon default, the loan
account was classified as NPA, and the Bank
initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,
2002. The mortgaged property was auctioned on
28.06.2011 for Rs. 21,35,000/- in favour of
Respondent No. 2, and a sale certificate was
issued on 26.07.2011. Physical possession of the
property was handed over to Respondent No. 2
on 13.12.2013, pursuant to the order dated
10.12.2013, passed by this Court in CWJC No.
19421 of 2012.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Respondent No. 1, subsequently
filed S.A. No. 44 of 2017 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Patna, on 06.03.2017,
challenging the auction sale along with an
application for condonation of delay of 2080
days. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, initially
condoned the delay on 22.09.2017 (Annexure -9)
but the said order was set aside by the this Court
on 26.08.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 17999 of 2017
(Annexure-11), and the matter was remanded for

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
5/14
fresh consideration. Upon reconsideration, the
Debts Recovery Tribunal by order dated
09.09.2022 (Annexure-12), again condoned the
delay. The petitioner challenged the said order
before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad, in Appeal Dy. No. 927 of 2022.
However, by order dated 22.11.2022, the
Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to
approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for
appropriate relief. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.
6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Learned Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, erred in declining to decide
the appeal on merits under Section 18 of the
SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, had no jurisdiction to
condone the delay in filing the securitisation
application under Section 17 of the Act, in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the earlier directions of this Court.
7. The Learned counsel further submits

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
6/14
that Respondent No. 1 was aware of the auction
sale in the year 2014, as evident from his
objection filed before the Certificate Officer, but
je approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, only
on 06.03.2017. The delay was not satisfactorily
explained, and the requirements for exclusion of
time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act were
also not established. It is, therefore, prayed to
set aside impugned order dated 22.11.2022 and
appropriate relief be granted.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondent No. 1. The Learned
counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the
present Writ petition has become infructuous, as
the DRT, Patna, has allowed S.A. No. 44 of 2017
vide order dated 14.02.2023 in favour of
Respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that the
petitioner Bank has already challenged the said
order before the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Allahabad, in Regular Appeal No. 356 of
2023, which is pending for adjudication. Hence,
the petitioner cannot pursue parallel remedies. It

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
7/14
is also submitted that Respondent No. 1 is willing
to repay the outstanding dues of the Bank and
seeks restoration of possession of the mortgaged
property. Therefore, the Learned counsel for the
respondent prays to dismiss the Writ petition.
9. A counter affidavit has also been filed
on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. The Learned
counsel for Respondent No. 2 supports the case
of the petitioner Bank and submits that the DRT,
Patna, illegally condoned the delay of 2080 days
in filing S.A. No. 44 of 2017, despite the absence
of sufficient cause. It is further submitted that
Respondent No. 1 was admittedly aware of the
auction sale and delivery of possession to
Respondent No. 2, as evident from his application
dated 24.10.2014 filed before the Certificate
Officer. The Learned counsel contends that the
prolonged delay was deliberate and unexplained,
despite the rights acquired by Respondent No. 2
through the auction sale and sale certificate
dated 26.07.2011. Accordingly, it is prayed to set
aside the impugned orders.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
8/14
10. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit of
respondent No. 2 was filed on behalf of the
petitioner. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the subsequent decision of the DRT,
Patna, allowing S.A. No. 44 of 2017 does not
render the present Writ petition infructuous, as
the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to
condone the delay of 2080 days remains to be
decided. It is further submitted that the appeal
pending before the DRAT, Allahabad, challenges
the merits of the final order, whereas the present
Writ petition challenges the jurisdiction of the
DRT and the legality of the order passed by the
Appellate Tribunal. The Learned counsel also
relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Parasaadilal
Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. & Others (Civil
Appeal No. 5240 of 2022 (arisning out of
SLP (C) NO. 6368 of 2017) to contend that the
statutory period of limitation under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act must be respected. The
Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the Writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
9/14
petition is maintainable and deserves to be
allowed.
11. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the supplementary
affidavit has been filed to bring on record the
relevant documents relating to the classification
of the loan account as NPA, issuance of the
demand and auction sale notices, sale of the
secured asset in favour of Respondent No. 2, and
issuance of the sale certificate dated 26.07.2011.
It is further submitted that physical possession of
the auctioned property was handed over to
Respondent No. 2 on 13.12.2013, pursuant to the
directions of the Patna High Court.
12. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered in Bank of Baroda & Ors. Vs.
Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. (supra) particularly paragraph 12 which
reads as follows:
"12. The reason for providing a
time limit of 45 days for filing an
application Under Section 17 can easily

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
10/14
be inferred from the purpose and
object of the enactment. In Transcore v.
Union of India and Anr.
MANU/SC/5319/2006: (2008) 1 SCC
125. this Court held that the SARFAESI
Act is enacted for quick enforcement of
the security. It is unfortunate that
proceedings where a property that has
been brought to sale and third- party
rights created under the provisions of
the Act, have remained inconclusive
even after a decade."
13. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner further places reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu &
Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3243 ,
particularly paragraph 28 thereof, which reads as
follows:
"28. This flows from the general
principle of applicable to 'consequential
orders'. Once the basis of a proceeding
is gone, may be at a later point of time
by order of a superior authority, any
intermediate action taken in the
meantime like the recommendation of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
11/14
the State and by the UPSC and the
action taken thereon - would fall to the
ground. This principle of consequential
orders which is applicable to judicial and
quasi-judicial proceedings is equally
applicable to administrative orders. In
other words, where an order is passed
by an authority and its validity is being
reconsidered by a superior authority
(like the Governor in this case) and if
before the superior authority has given
its decision, some further action has
been taken on the basis of the initial
order of the primary authority, then such
further action will fall to the ground the
moment the superior authority has set
aside the primary order."
14. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-
M.D., Coal India Ld. & Ors. Vs. Ananta Saha
& Ors. in Civil APpeal No. 2958 of 2011,
particularly paragraph Nos. 30 and 31 thereof,
which reads as follows:
"30. It is a settled legal
proposition that if initial action is not in

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
12/14
consonance with law, subsequent
proceedings would not sanctify the same.
In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim
"sublato fundamento cadit opus" is
applicable, meaning thereby, in case a
foundation is removed, the superstructure
falls.
31. In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil
Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court
observed that once the basis of a
proceeding is gone, all consequential acts,
actions, orders would fall to the ground
automatically and this principle of
consequential order which is applicable to
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is
equally applicable to administrative orders.
(See also State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu
N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC
191; and Kalabharati Advertising v.
Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR
2010 SC 3745).
15. The Learned counsel for Respondent
No. 2, the auction purchaser, places reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Sri V. Thulasiram v. The
Authorised Officer , wherein the judgments
cited by the Learned counsel for the petitioner
(supra) have also been considered.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
13/14
16. Heard the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials available on
record.
17. It is evident from the record that the
DRT, Patna, allowed S.A. No. 44 of 2017 by order
dated 14.02.2023, which has been challenged by
the petitioner Bank before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, by way of Regular
Appeal i.e. R.A. No. 356 of 2023, which is pending
adjudication, wherein the petitioner Bank has
riased all the questions including the limitation
aspect, which was adjudicated by the DRT, Patna.
18. In view of the pendency of the
aforesaid appeal, wherein the petitioner Bank has
challenged the final order passed in S.A. No. 44 of
2017, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present Writ petition, as the petitioner is already
pursuing the statutory remedy available to it.
Further, once S.A. No. 44/2017 is disposed off by
the DRT, the Writ petition itself become
infructuous as it has arisen against the
interlocutory application in S.A. NO. 44 of 2017

Patna High Court CWJC No.6319 of 2023 dt.28-10-2026
14/14
whereby the DRT has condoned the delay of 2080
days in preferring the case. Further, the
petitioner cannot pursue parallel proceedings in
respect of the same dispute and it would not be
appropriate.
19. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands
dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this
Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the pending appeal, and the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall decide the
same in accordance with law.
20. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.


(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date