STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/s VIMLA FUELS AND METALS LIMITED

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.11.05
18:10:49 +0530
1

CGHC010403962026 2026:CGHC:47053
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1400 of 2026
1 - State Bank of India A Body Corporate Constituted under State Bank of India Act,
1955, Having one of its Branch i.e. Stressed Assets Management Branch, Through
th
its Authorized Officer / Chief Manager 4 Floor, Old H.H.O. Building Lal Darwaja,
Bhadra, Ahmedabad Gujarat
... Petitioner
versus
1 - M/s Vimla Fuels and Metals Limited (Earlier M/s Vimla Fuels and Metals Private
Limited) - Through its Interim Resolution Professional Address Survey No. 522,
Village Sikra, City Bachau, District Kachchh, Gujarat - 370140 (This Borrower
Company has been admitted in CIRP under IBC 2016)
2 - Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal (Guarantor and Mortgagor) Address Plot No.4, Block
No.49, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg C.G. – 490020
3 - Shri Sachin Kumar Agrawal (Guarantor and Mortgager) Address Plot No.4, Block
No.49, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg C.G. – 490020
4 - Shri Sandeep Kumar Agrawal (Guarantor and Mortgager) Address Plot No.4,
Block No.49, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg C.G. – 490020
5 - Smt. Mini Agrawal (Guarantor and Mortgager) Address Plot No.4, Block No.49,
Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg C.G. – 490020
6 - M/s Vimal Nextera JVC Coke Limited (Corporate Guarantor) (Earlier Vimla
Metcoke Limited) Address Plot No. 83, Sector 8, Gandhidham, Kachchh, Gujarat -
370201
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
:
For Petitioner Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
05-11-2026
1. Heard.
2. The present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24-06-2026
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur in SARFAESI Case
No.744/2026 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14
of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the SARFAESI Act’) has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has mis-appreciated the documents submitted before it
along with the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the said
documents just before the table of existing limit and proposed limit amount it
has been clearly mentioned that ‘Rs. in crores’, whereas the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has observed in its order that there is no mention of the
unit of the amount either it is on rupees, lacs or crores, whereas, rupees in
crore have clearly been mentioned in those documents. He would further
submit that in the present writ petition he annexed the bank account
statement of the loan amount with respect to the respondent’s loan and on
these two grounds the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
He would further submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not an
adjudicating authority who has to decide the application under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act on merits, but he has to be proceed for delivery of
possession of the subject property in accordance with law. Therefore, the
impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error and illegality, which is liable to
be set aside and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may be directed to
proceed in accordance with law on the application filed by the petitioner

3
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents.
5. From perusal of the document Annexure-P/1 at page No.15, 55 and 111 it
transpires that the unit of amount shown in the table of the documents is
mentioned as ‘Rs. in crores’. From the order impugned passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate it has been observed that the unit of the
amount has not been mentioned either it is in rupees, lacs or crores. Since
rupees in crores has clearly been mentioned in the table, it appears that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has mis-appreciated the documents
produced before it along with the application under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act. Though it is submission of the petitioner that he has annexed
the loan transaction documents in the present writ petition, however, from the
impugned order it appears that the said loan transaction documents has not
been annexed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the
application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which has been filed here
in the present writ petition.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter may be
remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur for deciding the
application afresh after considering the documents produced before it along
with the application.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24-06-2026 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate (Annexure-P/9) is set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for deciding the application
afresh in accordance with law on its own merits after considering the
documents annexed with the application. The petitioner is at liberty to
produce additional documents in support of the application before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, if so advised.

4
8. With the aforesaid observation the present writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
Sd/-
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
(
Judge
Aadil