SANGITABEN ARVINDBHAI TEJANI vs ICICI BANK LIMITED
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1681 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
====================================================
SANGITABEN ARVINDBHAI TEJANI
Versus
ICICI BANK LIMITED
====================================================
Appearance:
MS. HINA S RAVAL(7298) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
V G RAVAL(7637) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AS PANESAR(5390) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Panesar
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the
consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself.
2. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs :-
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the
present petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus
and direct the Respondent to execute registered sale deed in
favour of the petitioner after accepting the balance amount of
Rs.30,18,750/- for the auction property or in alternatively refund
the amount paid (Rs.10,06,250/-) by the petitioner with interest
as the petitioner is aggrieved with the action taken by the
respondent as mentioned in Annexure F and G of the present
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
petition.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Bank
to stay any current/future auction proceedings and further
SARFAESI actions;
(D) xxx xxx
(E) xxx xxx.”
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present is that Dungrani
Bipinbhai Diyalbhai (Borrower) Dungrani Manishaben Bipinbhai (Co-
Borrower) were granted credit facilities by the respondent – ICICI
Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”). However,
due to default made by the borrowers, the respondent has initiated
proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (For Short “ SARFAESI Act”) to recover the dues
to the Bank to the tune of Rs.18,12,852/-.
3.1. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent Bank
with a view to participate in the E-auction scheduled on 10.10.2025
conducted by the respondent for the sale of immovable secured
assets being the disputed property. Pursuant thereto the petitioner
participated in the E-auction conducted on 10.10.2025 for the sale of
immovable secured assets and bid of the petitioner was accepted by
the respondent. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder for
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
a total amount of Rs.40,25,000/- The respondent issued a sale
confirmation letter dated 10.10.2025 in favour of the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that the petitioner paid 25% of the bid offer
price after deducting the amount of earnest money deposit paid on
23.09.2025.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner addressed a
letter to the respondent Bank, expressing unwillingness to purchase
the disputed property on account of the existing title dispute and
requesting the Bank not to forfeit the amount of Rs.10,06,250/-
deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner reiterated the aforesaid
facts by way of an e-mail dated 24.10.2025 and also forwarded the
Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the disputed property, which
reflects a Registered Agreement to Sell executed by the borrower in
favour of Mr. Sanjaybhai Jinabhai Falki on 01.08.2024, bearing
Registration No.11663.
3.3. The petitioner further submits that the respondent Bank, vide
letter dated 28.11.2025, informed the petitioner of its decision to
forfeit 25% of the amount deposited by the petitioner, being
Rs.10,06,250/-. It is contended that, while passing the aforesaid
decision, the respondent Bank failed to consider the petitioner's
earlier representation and the material placed on record with regard
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
to the title dispute pertaining to the subject property. It is further
contended that the respondent Bank had not specified any timeline
within which the petitioner was required to pay the balance sale
consideration. Moreover, the petitioner has also been disqualified
from participating in future auctions conducted by the respondent
Bank .
3.4. Subsequent to forfeiture the respondent Bank issued E-auction
sale notice for the sale of immovable property which was scheduled
on 20.01.2026. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent
Bank, in particular forfeiture of earnest money deposit, the present
writ petition is preferred.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.G. Raval appearing for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr. A.S. Panesar appearing for the
respondent.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the action taken by the respondent under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act and Rules in respect of the subject property is not in
consonance with the provisions of the law and is against the settled
provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules. It is further submitted that
the entire auction proceedings are conducted without any title
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
clearance certificate and the respondent has suppressed the material
information while conducting the auction vis-a-vis the bank has not
disclosed the subsequently executed agreement to sell as mentioned
by the petitioner.
6. Per contra , learned advocate Mr. A.S. Panesar has raised
preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ
petition. Firstly the respondent Company being incorporated under
the Companies Act, being private entity would not fall within the
purview of the State or its instrumentality of the State and therefore,
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would
not be maintainable. Secondly, with regard to having efficacious
alternative remedy which according to learned advocate for the
respondent is that the redressal of the grievances arising out of the
action taken by the Bank can be redressed by filing an application
under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act as term “any person” is of
wide importance and in catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed that auction purchasers challenging the forfeiture of
deposit money can approach Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under
the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.
7. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
respondent has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited v.
Punjab National Bank Limited reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626.
7.1. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the
respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable
and the same is required to be dismissed.
8. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having perused the material on record, the
main consideration is with regard to the appropriate remedy
available to the petitioner is not being disputed and the petitioner is
not auction purchaser. It is also not in dispute that the amount of
earnest money of 25% paid by the petitioner was forfeited. In the
case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court has categorically stated that expressions “any of measures”
referred in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI would include all
ingredients of Section 17(1) of the Act. Further it was observed that
expression “any person” would envisage that there can be challenge
to the action of the secured creditors before the DRT and, therefore,
any action of forfeiture would also be available to the petitioner
under Section 17(1) of the Act. The relevant observations made by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
Limited (supra) is as under :-
“ 29. In our view, therefore, the expression “any of the measures
referred to in Section 13(4) taken by secured creditor or his
authorised officer” in Section 17(1) would include all actions
taken by the secured creditor under the Rules which relate to the
measures specified in Section 13(4).
30. The auction-purchaser (appellant herein) is one such person,
who is aggrieved by the action of the secured creditor in
forfeiting their money. The appellant, therefore, falls within the
expression “any person” as specified under Section 17(1) and
hence is entitled to challenge the action of the secured creditor
(PNB) before the DRT by filing an application under Section
17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.”
9. In view of the settled legal position, without adverting to the
maintainability of the present petition,this Court is of the view that
the petitioner can avail of the alternative statutory remedy by
preferring an appropriate application under Section 17(1) of the Act.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate not
to entertain the present petition and to relegate the petitioner to
avail of the aforesaid statutory remedy before the appropriate forum.
It is, however, clarified that the period spent by the petitioner in
pursuing the present petition before this Court shall be duly
considered by the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, while
considering the question of delay, if any, in instituting the
proceedings.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026
C/SCA/1681/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240083542026)
petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:04:56 IST 2026