Vaishali Rahul Gondhane And Others vs Central Bank Of India, Thr. Chief Manager/Auth. Officer, Nagpur And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:6635
2704WP2110-26.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2110 OF 2026
1. Vaishali Rahul Gondhane, Aged 42 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o C/o Bhalchandra Khanorkar, Plot no.14,
Kalmeshwar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 441501.
2. Vaibhav Avdhut Patil, Aged 41 years, Occ: Private
job, R/o Bazaar Line, Jai Bhim Ward, at Post
Allipur, Taluka Hinganghat, Allipur, Wardha,
3. Amol Avdhut Patil, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private
job, R/o at Row House no.232-C, Bharat Town
at Yerkheda, Taluka Kamptee, District Nagpur. PETITIONERS

VERSUS
1. Central Bank of India, through its Chief Manager/
Authorised Officer having address at Oriental Building,
LIC square, Kamptee Road, Nagpur-440001.
2. Pravin Vidhyadhar Sharma, Aged: Occ: Nil,
R/o Quarter no.66, Pancholi Police Station
Quarters, Nagpur – 440017.
3. Amol Suryabhan Pawade, Aged: Occ: Nil,
R/o Railway Quarter no.K-47, Guard Line,
Nagpur – 440012. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri R.D. Dhande, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Bhushan N. Mohata, counsel for the respondent no.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : APRIL 01 , 202 6

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : APRIL 27 , 202 6
JUDGMENT
Heard. RULE.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking relief to hold
and declare that the initiation of proceedings by the respondent no.1-
Central Bank of India (for short, ‘the Bank’) under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

2704WP2110-26.odt 2 Judgment
Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) are illegal and contrary to law.
The petitioners have also challenged the notice under Section 13(2) and
the orders passed by the competent authorities under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act.
3. The background facts leading to the instant petition are succinctly
stated below:-
i. The petitioners are legal hairs of Smt. Sudha Avdhut Patil, who was
borrower of the respondent no.1-Bank. The petitioners’ mother had
owned a plot bearing no.231-C, situated at Mouza Yerkheda, Taluka
Kamptee, District Nagpur.
ii. In the year 2011, Smt. Sudha Avadhut Patil (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Borrower’) had availed a Cent home loan from the Dhanvate
National College branch at Nagpur of the respondent no.1-Bank to
construct a house on her plot. The respondent no.1-Bank had sanctioned
the financial facility of Rs.5,50,000/- and accordingly a mortgage deed
dated 11.03.2011 was executed by and between the Borrower and the
respondent no.1-Bank, where in the borrower’s plot was mortgaged
against the said loan. The loan was disbursed to the borrower.
iii. On 08.11.2011, the borrower expired, leaving behind the
petitioners as her legal hairs and the loan was outstanding at that time.
The petitioner nos.2 and 3 have paid some of the installments, however,
the entire loan amount was not repaid.
iv. On 29.08.2014, the respondent no.1-Bank declared the account of
the borrower as non-performing asset (NPA).

2704WP2110-26.odt 3 Judgment
v. On 08.12.2023, the respondent no.1-Bank issued notice under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the petitioners nos.2 and 3, calling
upon them to pay the entire outstanding amount along with interest, total
amounting to Rs. 16,03,982/-.
vi. The respondent no.1-Bank thereafter filed application under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagpur and the same was allowed by order dated 05.10.2024.
Accordingly, the respondent no.1-Bank claimed entitlement to take
possession of the mortgaged property, which is plot no.231-C,
admeasuring 875 square feet having residential unit proposed to be
constructed, admeasuring 694 square feet, described in the schedule of
property reproduced in the order dated 05.10.2024.
vii. Pursuant to this, the respondent no.1-Bank sent a letter dated
09.04.2025 to the petitioner nos.2 and 3 informing thereby that physical
possession of the secured asset would be taken by it and accordingly the
possession was taken by the respondent no.1-Bank on 21.05.2025.
viii. The respondent no.1-Bank published a possession notice in daily
newspapers ‘Loksatta’ and ‘Indian Express’ on 27.05.2025, indicating that
the possession was taken by the respondent no.1-Bank.
ix. On 02.06.2025, the respondent no.1-Bank filed a report with the
police station against the petitioners complaining, thereby that they have
re-entered the property by breaking open the lock.
x. The respondent no.1-Bank thereafter filed a fresh application under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for restitution of possession which was
allowed by the Court by order dated 10.11.2025.

2704WP2110-26.odt 4 Judgment
xi. On 15.12.2025, the respondent no.1-Bank issued a notice to the
petitioners intimating that physical possession would be taken on
29.12.2025.
xii. On 29.12.2025, the bailiff attempted to take possession, however,
he was obstructed by the wife of the petitioner no.3, who locked herself
inside the property and threatened self immolation as recorded by the
bailiff in its report.
xiii. The respondent no.1-Bank again filed an application before the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur seeking permission to break
open the locks with police protection which came to be allowed by order
dated 30.01.2026.
xiv. In this background, the respondent no.1-Bank again sent a letter
dated 25.02.2026, informing the petitioners that the physical possession
of the secured asset would be taken on 10.03.2026.
xv. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the instant petition
challenging the orders passed by the Courts on 05.10.2024, 10.11.2025
and 30.01.2026. The petitioners have also claimed for a declaration that
the entire action of the respondent no.1-Bank is illegal being barred by
limitation and contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Security interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
4. Shri R.D. Dhande, learned counsel for petitioners advanced two
primary submissions. Firstly, that the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners are illegal on account of failure to serve the demand notice
upon the petitioner no.1, who also happens to be one of the legal

2704WP2110-26.odt 5 Judgment
representative of the principal borrower and the demand notice which was
served upon the petitioners nos.2 and 3 only, cannot be treated as a valid
demand notice. He submitted that the respondent no.1-Bank was duty
bound to ascertain the details of all the legal representatives of the
principal borrower and was required to serve the notice upon each one of
them. By relying upon the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Security Interest
Enforcement Rules, 2002 with respect to demand notice, the learned
counsel for petitioners submitted that the demand notice being not served
upon the petitioner no.1, the entire action based on the said demand
notice is unsustainable in law.
5. Secondly, it is submitted that the entire proceedings are barred by
law of limitation in view of Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act and by
adverting my attention to the said provision, the learned counsel for
petitioners submitted that the notice under Section 13(4) was not issued
within a period of twelve years (which is the limitation period as per the
Limitation Act, 1963) from the date of death of the principal borrower and
as such the notice issued on 15.05.2025 was barred by limitation.
With these arguments, he submitted that the possession of the
petitioner’s plot admeasuring 875 square feet, with construction of about
694 square feet, is likely to be taken away by the Bank.
6. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society Versus
UCO Bank & Others [(2024) 6 SCC 579] and judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus State of

2704WP2110-26.odt 6 Judgment
Maharashtra & Others [2023(1) Mh.L.J. 678]. He submitted that the
petition is maintainable in view of the apparent non-compliance with the
statutory provisions by the respondent no.1-Bank thereby violating the
fundamental rights of the petitioners. By relying on the judgment in PHR
Invent Educational Society (supra), he submitted that the availability of
alternate remedy cannot be a reason to question the maintainability of the
petition. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Versus District
Magistrate & Others [2022 AIR (P&H) 169] and submitted that the
definition of ‘borrower’ in Section 22 of the SARFAESI Act covers all the
legal representatives and in absence of issuance of any notice to one of the
legal representatives, the entire action stands vitiated.
7. In support of his contentions about issue of limitation, he placed
reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Dipankar
Chakraborty versus Allahabad Bank & Others [2017 DGLS (Cal.) 153] and
submitted that Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act bars a secured creditor
from taking all or any measures under Section 13(4), unless the claim of
such secured creditor is within the period of limitation prescribed under
the Limitation Act, 1963.
8. Per contra, Shri Bhushan Mohota, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1-Bank strenuously opposed the petition and raised
preliminary objection about maintainability of the petition on two counts
firstly, on account of suppression of material facts by the petitioners and
secondly on account of availability of alternate remedy.

2704WP2110-26.odt 7 Judgment
9. As regards, suppression of material facts, he submitted that the
petitioners have suppressed material facts with respect to their conduct, of
creating hurdles in the process of recovery proceedings undertaken by the
respondent no.1-Bank in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act. In this regard, he submitted that the petitioners have not disclosed in
their petition the following crucial facts:-
i. That, the possession of the property was taken by the respondent
no.1-Bank on 21.05.2025.
ii. The fact that the respondent no.1-Bank has taken possession was
published in the daily newspapers ‘Loksatta’ and ‘Indian Express’ on
27.05.2025.
iii. Thereafter, the petitioner no.3 had illegally re-entered the property
by breaking open the lock.
iv. The respondent no.1-Bank lodged a police complaint on
02.06.2025.
v. On 29.12.2025, when the bailiff attempted to take possession, he
was obstructed by the wife of the petitioner no.3, who had locked herself
inside the property and had given threat of self immolation.
10. He submitted that the memorandum of petition does not contain
the above mentioned facts which are relevant to demonstrate the conduct
of the petitioners. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioner no.3 in
breaking open the lock and re-entering the premises, even though the
possession was taken by the respondent no.1-Bank by following the
statutory procedure, is itself sufficient to conclude that the petitioners

2704WP2110-26.odt 8 Judgment
have no regards to the process of law and are not entitled for any
equitable or discretionary relief. He submitted that the suppression of
material facts by the petitioners disentitles them to claim any relief from
this Court.
11. As regards the contentions about availability of alternate remedy, he
submitted that any person aggrieved by any notice or action under the
provisions of SARFAESI Act has got remedy to approach to the Debts
Recovery Tribunal by filing appropriate applications under the SARFAESI
Act. He submitted that the petitioners have failed to avail the alternate
remedy since December-2023, when the Bank has issued the first notice
under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the invocation of writ
jurisdiction by showing some urgency is an abuse of process of Court.
12. Apart from the above mentioned preliminary objections, the
learned counsel for respondent no.1-Bank submitted that the entire action
taken by the Bank in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act
is well within limitation as the account of the petitioners had turned into
NPA on 29.08.2014 and the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
Act, issued on 08.12.2023, was well within limitation. He submitted that
in accordance with provisions of Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act, the
proceedings are initiated within the period of twelve years in accordance
with provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as such the objection
raised by the petitioners on account of limitation is devoid of substance.

2704WP2110-26.odt 9 Judgment
13. As regards, the demand notice, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 submitted that the demand notice was duly served upon
the petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are the legal representatives of the
principal borrower and mere allegation that the demand notice was not
not served on the petitioner no.1, who also happened to be one of the
legal representative of the original borrower, does not invalidate the
demand notice. He submitted that the petitioner nos.2 and 3, never
informed the respondent no.1-Bank about the petitioner no.1 being the
third legal representative and as such the demand notice cannot be
faulted. He also submitted that the respondent no.1-Bank cannot be
expected to make an enquiry and ascertain the details of all the available
legal representatives of the principal borrower and it was the duty of the
legal representatives of the principal borrower to repay the loan on their
own. He also submitted that the notice to the petitioner nos.2 and 3, who
are the real brothers of the petitioner no.1, has to be considered as
knowledge to the petitioner no.1 about the proceedings, initiated by the
respondent no.1-Bank and thus the contentions in this regard are an
afterthought.
14. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1-Bank placed reliance on following judgments:-
i. Bharat Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others [(1988)
4 SCC 534].
ii. Biraji @ Briraji & Another Versus Surya Pratap & Others [(2020)
10 SCC 729].

2704WP2110-26.odt 10 Judgment

iii. Prestige Lights Ltd. Versus State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449].
iv. Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others [(2010) 2 SCC 114].
v. Kishore Samrite Versus State of U.P. & Others [(2013) 2 SCC 398].
vi. Chaitanya Arora Versus Shoban Salim Thakur [2025
Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6374].
vii. M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Others Versus Naveen Mathew
Philip & Another. Etc. [(2024) 17 SCC 311].
viii. Liladhar Ladappa Kendole Versus Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank
Ltd. & Others [2021 Supreme(Bom) 412].
By pointing out the legal position as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bharat Singh & Others and Biraji @ Briraji & Another (supra), he
submitted that the petitioners were required to insert necessary pleadings
of facts in the memorandum of petition and were duty bound to state on
affidavit, all the relevant facts.
15. By relying on judgments in Prestige Lights Ltd., Dalip Singh,
Kishore Samrite and Chaitanya Arora (supra), he submitted that a person
who suppressed material facts is not entitled for the discretionary and
equitable relief under writ jurisdiction of this Court. He invited attention
to the observations that the very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true, complete and correct facts and the Court will have to
consider the conduct of a party who does not disclose full facts or
suppresses relevant material or is guilty of misleading the Court.

2704WP2110-26.odt 11 Judgment
By relying on the judgments in M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Others and
Liladhar Ladappa Kendole (supra), he submitted that the instant writ
petition by the borrowers without filing proceedings before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal is an abuse of process of the Court and in the wake of
an alternate efficacious remedy available to the borrowers, this petition is
liable to be dismissed.
16. To controvert the contentions of the respondent no.1 about
suppression of material facts, Shri R.D. Dhande, learned counsel for
petitioners tried to refute them by stating that the petitioners have not
suppressed any material fact since they have annexed the bunch of
documents as annexures to the petition which include all the relevant
facts with respect to the entire proceedings. He submitted that although
there is no narration of each of the events in the memorandum of petition,
however, in view of the fact that the petitioners have filed all the available
documents, they cannot be alleged to have suppressed any material fact.
Refuting this argument, Shri Bhushan Mohota, learned counsel for
respondent no.1 submitted that the non-disclosure of facts on affidavit in
the memorandum of petition is sufficient to infer that the petitioners have
suppressed material facts.
17. In the background of above mentioned submissions, rival
contentions fall for my consideration.
18. While dealing with the controversy involved in the petition, it has
to be noted that the facts about advancement of loan by the respondent

2704WP2110-26.odt 12 Judgment
no.1-Bank to the principal borrower and the action taken by the Bank
under provisions of the SARFAESI Act are not disputed. All these facts are
demonstrated on the basis of documents available on record and even the
parties have advanced their arguments mainly on the legal issues about
entitlement of the respondent no.1-Bank to continue with the proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act.
19. In view of the strenuous arguments submitted by both the counsels
on the issue of suppression of material facts and entitlement of the
petitioners to seek relief under the writ jurisdiction, the contentions in this
regard need to be dealt with primarily.
A perusal of the memorandum of petition as filed by the petitioners
discloses that the petitioners have not disclosed candidly the facts about
the breaking open of the lock by the petitioner no.3 and re-entering the
premises after the possession was taken by the Bank on 21.05.2025. The
petitioners have also not disclosed the fact about lodging of a police
complaint by the respondent no.1-Bank on 02.06.2025. Further, the
petitioners have not stated in the petition the fact that on 29.12.2025,
when the bailiff attempted to take possession, he was obstructed by the
wife of the petitioner no.3, who locked herself inside the property and
threatened self immolation. Pertinent to note, these facts are relevant to
demonstrate the conduct of the parties during the proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act, for recovery of the loan initiated by the respondent no.1-
Bank. The contentions of the petitioners that although these facts are not
mentioned in the memorandum of petition, since the relevant documents

2704WP2110-26.odt 13 Judgment
are filed along with the bunch of documents on record, the same amounts
to disclosure of facts, need to be tested.
20. In this regard, it is fruitful to refer to the elucidation of law as made
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Others Versus
Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Others [(2013) 11 SCC
531]. While dealing with the identical contentions about suppression of
facts and attempt to justify it on the ground that the relevant documents
were produced on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically
observed that mere mention of the documents in the memorandum of
petition is not enough disclosure. It has been observed that it is the
obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the
decision-making to the Court and further that it is not for a litigant to
decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not
material. The pertinent observations are made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that it is not for the Court to look into every word of the pleadings,
documents and annexures to fish out a fact and it is for the litigant to
come up-front and clean with all material facts and it is for the Court to
decide the relevance of any fact for arriving at a decision. The position of
law is reiterated about the well settled principle that a person who does
not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on
merits of his grievance and such a person is not entitled to relief under
Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India.
It is beneficial to reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the said
judgment being paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 46 and 47:-

2704WP2110-26.odt 14 Judgment
“42. While dealing with the conduct of the parties, we may
also notice the submission of the learned counsel for
Respondent 1 to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of
suppression of a material fact from this Court, namely, the
rejection on 2-5-2003 of the first application for extension of
time filed by the trustees and the finality attached to it. These
facts have not been clearly disclosed to this Court by the
petitioners. It was submitted that in view of the suppression,
special leave to appeal should not be granted to the petitioners.
43. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no
material facts have been withheld from this Court. It was
submitted that while the order dated 2-5-2003 was undoubtedly
not filed, its existence was not material in view of subsequent
developments that had taken place. We cannot agree.
44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for
adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation
of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the
decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the
order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by
the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have
not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the
order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality.

46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India the

case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant
does not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled
to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any

relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p.51, para 21)
“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court
with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his
grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any
relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles
32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases
instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object
underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled
but is duty-bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants
who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute
the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making
misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on
adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."

2704WP2110-26.odt 15 Judgment
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en
passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the
requirement of disclosure. It is not for the court to look into
every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to fish
out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront and clean with
all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions
made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court to determine
whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a
decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and
must suffer the consequence thereof.”
21. While considering the enunciation of law as made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgment and applying it to the case

in hand, it has to be noted that the petitioners in the instant case have not

disclosed certain vital and relevant facts which throw light on the conduct

of the parties. The facts that the respondent no.1-Bank had earlier taken
possession by following due process of law on 21.05.2025 and despite that
the petitioner no.3 had illegally re-entered the property by breaking open
the lock is a material fact which ought to have been disclosed by the
petitioners, on affidavit in the petition. The lodging of police complaint by
the Bank on 02.06.2025 is also a relevant fact which ought to have been
disclosed by the petitioners. Also, on 29.12.2025, when on the second
time the possession was sought to be taken, the bailiff was obstructed by
the wife of the petitioner no.3, who locked herself inside the property and
threatened self immolation, is a relevant fact about conduct of the parties
which ought to have been disclosed by the petitioners on affidavit in the

petition. The contentions of the counsel for petitioners that the documents
about these facts are annexed and therefore there is no suppression of

2704WP2110-26.odt 16 Judgment
facts, is not at all an acceptable argument in view of the position of law, as
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment.

After giving anxious consideration to all the relevant documents and
contentions in this regard, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioners
have suppressed the material facts and are not therefore entitled for any
relief under writ jurisdiction. The petition filed by the petitioners deserve
to be dismissed on this count alone.
22. It is imperative for the parties to a litigation to make a true and
candid disclosure of all the material facts in the pleadings or in the
affidavits filed in the writ petitions by way of memorandum of petition or
affidavit-in-reply. The parties are duty bound to ascertain which are the
relevant facts necessary for deciding the lis in between them and shorn of
unnecessary details, disclose them. It is thereafter for the Court to
consider those facts and draw conclusions. Pertinent to note, in every
matter, the conduct of parties assumes lot of significance. As such, the
parties must make a true disclosure about actual events, may be with their
own justifications for the acts in question, however, in absence of true and
complete disclosure of facts, the Court would be ill-equipped and at a
disadvantage to appreciate the real dispute. The disclosure of relevant
facts has to be on affidavit and mere reference to some document which
refers to the said facts would not suffice, simply because it will not be a
disclosure on affidavit about the contents of the document depriving the
other side an opportunity to rebut the precise contentions. Non-disclosure
of relevant facts on affidavit and an attempt to obtain some orders on the

2704WP2110-26.odt 17 Judgment
basis of incomplete disclosure of facts would amount to abuse of process
of the Courts. In litigations of loan recovery, the disclosure of all the
relevant facts by both the parties is all the more imperative and non-
disclosure will attract severe consequences. In the case in hand, the
petitioners have not disclosed the relevant facts as referred above, which
disentitles them to claim relief.
23. Apart from this, if the contentions of the petitioners about legality
of the proceedings being barred by limitation are considered, it has to be
seen that undisputedly the account of the petitioners had turned NPA
(Non Performing Asset) on 29.08.2014 and the first notice under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was sent by the respondent no.1-Bank on
08.12.2023 and therefore the entire proceedings based on the said notice
cannot be treated to be barred by limitation. The proceedings initiated by
the bank are not hit by Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act on account of the
issue of limitation.
24. The arguments of the petitioners in this regard that the demand

notice is illegal because it was sent to only two of the legal representatives,
cannot also be accepted firstly, because the petitioner no.1 is not a third

person, rather she is the real sister of petitioner nos.2 and 3 who were
served with the demand notice and apparently she got knowledge through
them as she has not stated any other source of knowledge; and secondly
because it was the duty of the two legal representatives to inform to the
Bank about the name of the third legal representative, i.e. the petitioner

no.1 and the Bank cannot be expected to make an enquiry for ascertaining

2704WP2110-26.odt 18 Judgment
the names of all legal representatives and their addresses for serving the
demand notice. In my view, the submissions of the learned counsel for
petitioners that it was the duty of the bank to make an enquiry and
ascertain the whereabouts of all the legal representatives and then to
serve the demand notice on all of them, is absolutely untenable. Pertinent
to note, after the death of the principal borrower, the petitioner nos.2
and 3 have repaid some of the installments and as such, it is clear that the
legal representatives had the knowledge about their liability to pay the

outstanding loan of the Bank. In any case, the demand notice having
been served upon the two legal representatives of the original borrower
cannot be rendered illegal only on that count. Further, it has to be noted
that this is not the petition filed only by the petitioner no.1, rather the
instant petition is filed by all the three legal representatives and it is clear
that the petitioner no.1 could get the knowledge about the notice and
the proceedings through the petitioners nos.2 and 3, who are her real
brothers. In view of the above, the petitioner no.1 being one of the legal
heirs of the principal borrower, cannot take any advantage of Rule 3(4) of
the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to contend that the entire
proceedings are vitiated. The petitioner no.1 has clearly got knowledge
from the petitioner nos.2 and 3 on the basis of which the instant petition
is filed and therefore the reliance placed on Rule 3(4) of the Rules of 2002
is misplaced.
25. The position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
various judgments relied upon by the counsel for petitioners is not

2704WP2110-26.odt 19 Judgment
disputed. However, none of those judgments are of assistance since they
do not lay down the propositions as put forth by the petitioner. Apart
from this, those judgments have referred to the settled legal position in
the facts of the particular cases.
26. Pertinent to note, the petitioners have failed to put forth any
justification for not availing the alternate remedy, by approaching the
Debts Recovery Tribunal by challenging the notices issued by the
respondent no.1-Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The contentions in this
regard that the demand notice itself is illegal being not served upon one of
the legal representatives cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid
reasons. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any violation of their
fundamental rights and as such their justification for not availing the
alternate remedy is not acceptable.
27. On giving anxious consideration to the entire fact situation, it
appears that the petitioners have realised that the Bank is entitled to
recover the outstanding loan amount and they want to avoid repayment.
It has to be noted that after the death of their mother, who was the
principal borrower, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 have made repayment of the
loan by paying some of the installments, however, thereafter they stopped
repaying the loan installments. As such, the petitioners cannot claim that
they were unaware about the liability to make the repayment of the dues
of the Bank and they were also unaware about the proceedings initiated
by the Bank by sending the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
Act and the subsequent action. Despite this, the petitioners have not

2704WP2110-26.odt 20 Judgment
approached the competent Court/Tribunal by challenging the notice
or action initiated by the respondent no.1-Bank under the SARFAESI
Act. It thus appears that after having realised that the respondent
no.1-Bank is taking all the necessary steps for recovering its loan, the
petitioner nos.2 and 3 have brought forward the petitioner no.1 by
making a lame attempt to raise certain technical issues. The petitioners
have not at all expressed readiness to repay the loan despite knowing the
fact that the huge amount of loan is not repaid by them to the respondent
no.1-Bank. Under these circumstances, the filing of the instant petition by
suppressing material facts, warrants imposition of costs upon the
petitioners.
28. In view of the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any
illegality with the impugned orders. The petitioners have failed to make
out any case for seeking discretionary and equitable relief under the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. For the reasons recorded above, including the
conduct of the petitioners in suppression of the material facts, the instant
petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to
be paid by the petitioners to the respondent no.1-Bank within a period of
four weeks from today. Rule stands discharged.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE

2704WP2110-26.odt 21 Judgment
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners makes a
request for continuation of interim relief, for enabling the petitioners to
approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Considering the fact that the interim relief was operating during the
pendency of the petition, by which the physical possession of the
petitioners’ dwelling house was protected, it is directed that the interim
relief shall operate only for a period of four weeks from today.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/04/2026 13:06:33