VIRENDRA CHANDRAVANSHI vs BANK OF INDIA

1

CGHC010345732026 2026:CGHC:39341
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH
KUMAR
Date:
2026.09.09
10:34:04
+0530
NAFR
PRAKASH
KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4563 of 2026
1 - Virendra Chandravanshi S/o Shri Suraaj Chandravanshi Aged About 44
Years R/o Village- Gandai Kalan Tehsil- Bodla District- Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh,
2 - Nirendra Chandravanshi S/o Shri Suraaj Chandravanshi Aged About 41
Years R/o Village- Gandai Kalan Tehsil- Bodla District- Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh,
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Bank of India Through Its Authorised Officer Having Its Office At, Zonal
Office, Star House, 1st Floor, Plot No. 48, Sector- 24, New Raipur- 492101,
(C.G.)
2 - The Collector and District Magistrate, Raipur, Raipur(Chhattisgarh)
3 - The Tehsildar, Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur, (C.G.)
4 - Maal Jamadaar, Office of Tehsildar, Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.)
5 - Mr. Sunil Singh Rajput, S/o Shri Ram Singh Rajput House No. 16, Maruti
Ward, Near Khedapati Hanuman Mandir, Kawardha, Kabirdham- 491995,
(C.G.)
6 - M/s Maa Banjari Gud Udyog, Through Its Proprietor Shri Narendra

2
Chandravanshi, Having Office At, Village- Gandai Kalan, Tehsil-Bodla,
District- Kabirdham, (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
08/09/2026
1. Heard.
2.
The present petition has been filed challenging the propriety, legality
and validity of the impugned order dated 27.08.2026 whereby
Respondent No.4 has been directed to take physical possession of the
property of the petitioners on 08.09.2026 and hand over the same to
Respondent No.1 herein. By way of this petition, the petitioners have
prayed for following relief(s):-
“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any
appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the
impugned memo dated 27.08.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3, in
the interest of justice.
10.2 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may
also kindly be granted.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, against the order
dated 17.01.2025, a securitisation application has been filed before the
concerned DRT on 02.08.2026, which is pending for consideration. He

3
further submits that an application for urgent hearing of the matter has
also been moved, which is to be considered tomorrow by the
concerned Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As such, some
interim protection may be granted in favour of the petitioners so that the
possession, which is to be taken pursuant to the possession warrant
already issued and for which the date has been fixed for today itself,
may be deferred.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Bank of India submits
that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands.
He further submits that the order was passed way back on 17.01.2025;
however, the petitioners have not approached the concerned DRT in a
timely manner for obtaining the relief which they are seeking in the
present petition. As such, no leniency may be shown in favour of the
petitioners. He further submits that the present petition is not
maintainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the
material available on record.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the facts and
circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact that though the
petitioners have filed a securitisation application before the concerned
DRT, all such issues are required to be adjudicated by the concerned
DRT and not by this Court. Since the petitioners have approached this
Court with the limited prayer that the possession, which is to be taken
today itself, may be directed to be taken only after passing of an order
by the concerned DRT, this Court, considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, is of the view that some time may be

4
granted to the petitioners so that they may effectively argue their case
before the concerned DRT. Further, the DRT, Jabalpur is not
functioning properly till date, as the Presiding Officer has not been
appointed. This apart, till date, the Central Government has not taken
any initiative to appoint a regular Presiding Officer in the DRT, Jabalpur,
and the cases of the DRT, Jabalpur are being taken up before the DRT,
Ahmedabad. As such, ten days’ time is granted to the petitioners to
obtain an order of stay from the concerned DRT. Till the expiry of the
aforesaid period of ten days, no coercive steps shall be taken against
the petitioners by the concerned authorities.
7. It is further made clear that this order is being passed in exceptional
circumstances and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other
case.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Prakash