M/S. ADITYA RICE MILL vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

1

CGHC010132692026 2026:CGHC:38279

Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1593 of 2026
1 - M/s. Aditya Rice Mill Through Its Proprietor- Shri Nitin Sahu, S/o
Shri Nathu Prasad Sahu, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Behind The Masjid,
Pendra, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.).
2 - Shri Nitin Sahu S/o Shri Nathu Prasad Sahu Aged About 41 Years
R/o Behind The Masjid, Pendra District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi
(C.G.).
3 - Shri Nathu Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Lalta Prasad Sahu Aged
About 69 Years R/o Behind The Masjid, Pendra, District- Gaurela-
Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.).
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Authorised Officer/ Manager,
Having Its Corporate Office At State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama
Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra And Local Office At
Pendra Vb Branch, Near Jain Mandir, Pendra, District- Gaurela-

2
Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1901 of 2026
1 - M/s. Aditya Agro, Through Its Proprietor- Smt. Urmila Sahu, W/o-
Shri Nathu Prasad Sahu, Aged About 62 Years, R/o- Behind The
Masjid, Pendra, District-Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.).
2 - Smt. Urmila Sahu, W/o- Shri Nathu Prasad Sahu, Aged About 62
Years R/o- Behind The Masjid, Pendra, District-Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi (C.G.).
3 - Shri Nathu Prasad Sahu, S/o- Late Shri Lalta Prasad Sahu, Aged
About 69 Years R/o- Behind The Masjid, Pendra, District-Gaurela-
Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.).
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Authorised Officer/ Manager,
Having Its Corporate Office At State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama
Road,natiman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra And Local Office At Pendra
Vb Branch, Near Jain Mandir , Pendra, District-Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi (C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate.

3
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

25/08/2026
1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the
cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions.
Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer
made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and
substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The
reliefs prayed in WPC No. 1593/2026 (M/s. Aditya Rice Mill and
others vs. State Bank of India) are quoted hereinbelow in order
to consider these cases and to decide the same.
“1] That this Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased
to appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
and the notice dated 05.03.2026 issued to Petitioner
No.01 namely M/s. Aditya Rice Mill (ANNEXURE-P/1),
notice dated 05.03.2026 issued to Petitioner No.02
(ANNEXURE-P/2) and notice dated 05.03.2026 issued to
Petitioner No.03 (ANNEXURE-P/3) issued under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act may kindly be quashed, in the
interest of justice and all the further proceedings initiated
by the Bank in pursuance of the impugned notices may
also kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.
2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present
petition has been preferred seeking quashment of the notices

4
dated 05.03.2026 issued by the respondent under Section 13(2)
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act),
whereby the respondent has sought to initiate fresh proceedings
against the petitioners despite the fact that proceedings arising
out of the earlier notices issued under the SARFAESI Act are
already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1, a rice mill,
has been engaged in the business of custom milling of paddy for
Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited for
several years and had availed financial assistance from the
respondent in the year 2015 in the form of a Cash Credit facility of
Rs.40 lakhs and a Term Loan facility of Rs.28 lakhs, for which
Petitioner No.3 stood as guarantor. Learned counsel further
submits that due to non-availability of storage space at the
godown of the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing
Federation Limited, two lots comprising 540 quintals of rice
belonging to Petitioner No.1 were damaged on account of heavy
rainfall in April, 2016, pursuant to which the Federation stopped
issuing Delivery Orders to the petitioners and also requested the
respondent for encashment of the bank guarantees. Thereafter,
the respondent issued demand notices dated 01.11.2017 and
18.12.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, to which
the petitioners submitted their reply under Section 13(3A), but
ignoring the objections raised therein, the respondent proceeded

5
to issue a possession notice dated 17.02.2018 under Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners
approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, by filing a
Securitisation Application, which is still pending consideration,
and the respondent has also instituted proceedings before the
said Tribunal, in which the petitioners have already filed their
reply. It is submitted that, notwithstanding the pendency of the
aforesaid proceedings, the respondent has issued the impugned
fresh notice dated 05.03.2026 under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, stating that the earlier notice dated 01.11.2017
and the proceedings pursuant thereto have been withdrawn, and
has thereby sought to recommence the entire recovery
proceedings afresh. Learned counsel submits that such action of
the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and impermissible, particularly
when the earlier proceedings arising from the same transaction
are pending adjudication before the competent Debts Recovery
Tribunal, and that the petitioners are being subjected to undue
mental, physical and financial harassment on account of the
repeated initiation of proceedings; hence, the impugned notices
dated 05.03.2026 deserve to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Bank submits that the SARFAESI Act provides a specific statutory
mechanism under Section 13(3A) for raising objections and
challenging the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act. It is contended that the petitioners, instead of

6
availing the efficacious statutory remedy available to them under
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and approaching the
competent authority in accordance with law, have directly invoked
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present
petition. Learned counsel further submits that, in the absence of
any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this
Court at this stage, the petition is not maintainable and deserves
to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative and
efficacious statutory remedy. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of
Devi Ispat Limited vs. State Bank of India and ICICI Bank Ltd
Etc Etc vs. Umakanta Mohapatra Etc Etc.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the material available on record.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devi Ispat Limited
th
vs. State Bank of India decided on 16 April, 2014 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“(9.) The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition
dismissed it by an order dated 19th March 2013 on the
sole ground that Devi Ispat had an alternate statutory
remedy under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act to
make a representation against the letter issued under
Section 13(2) thereof.
(10.) Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act reads as
follows: "13. Enforcement of security interest. 1), (2) and

7
(3) xxx
(3A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the
borrower makes any representation or raises any
objection, the secured creditor shall consider such
representation or objection and if the secured creditor
comes to the conclusion that such representation or
objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall
communicate within one week of receipt of such
representation or objection the reasons for non-
acceptance of the representation or objection to the
borrower.
Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely
action of the secured creditor at the stage of
communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon
the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts
Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District
Judge under section 17A."
(11.) After the dismissal of its writ petition, Devi Ispat
made a representation to the Bank under Section 13(3A)
of the Act on 22nd March 2013. This was followed almost
immediately thereafter by an intra court appeal filed
against the order of the learned Single Judge. Although
the appeal was filed on 1st April 2013 (and we have gone
through the contents of the appeal memo) there is no
mention of Devi Ispat having made a representation to the

8
Bank under Section 13(3A) of the Act.
(12.) Be that as it may, the representation was considered
by the Bank and rejected on 2nd April 2013. The Division
Bench was informed of this during the hearing of the intra
court appeal on 26th April 2013.
(15.) While challenging the order dated 26th April 2013
passed by the Division Bench, learned counsel submitted
that Devi Ispat had no alternative but to file a writ petition
challenging the notice issued by the Bank on 18th
January 2013. We find no merit in this contention.
(16.) Firstly, Devi Ispat had an alternate remedy to make a
representation to the Bank under the provisions of Section
13(3A) of the Act and there was no reason to by-pass the
statutory mechanism.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd Etc
th
Etc vs. Umakanta Mohapatra Etc Etc decided on 05 October,
2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“(3.) Despite several judgments of this Court, including a
judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently
as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of
Travancore and Anr Mathew K.C, 2018 3 SCC 85, the
High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of

9
persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
(4.) The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a
result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has
followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:-
"18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the
High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works
(P) Ltd. and Another, 1997 6 SCC 450, observing:-
"32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of
judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to
judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate
courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled
decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly
contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial
adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly
deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not
applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical
orders which necessarily has the effect of granting
wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is
time that this tendency stops.""
(5.) The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable,
obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the
impugned order, which is set aside.”
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and
particularly taking into account the fact that the Securitisation

10
Application (S.A.) preferred by the petitioner is already pending
consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT),
Jabalpur, and that the concerned Bank has also instituted O.A.
No. 1058/2018 before the said Tribunal, this Court is of the
considered view that the issues involved in the present matter are
liable to be adjudicated by the competent DRT. In view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devi Ispat Limited v.
State Bank of India and ICICI Bank Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Umakanta
Mohapatra Etc. Etc. , the parties are relegated to the jurisdiction
of the concerned DRT, Jabalpur, for adjudication of their
respective claims and grievances in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the parties shall be at liberty to pursue the
proceedings already pending before the DRT, Jabalpur, and the
Tribunal shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, in
accordance with law. The petitioner may also raise the issue that
Bank is issuing notice repeatedly, while ignoring this fact that
proceedings are pending before DRT.
9. With this observation and direction, the writ petitions stand
disposed of.
10. The interim order granted by this Court in both the petitions shall
remain operative for a period of 10 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat