Mrs. Aarti Devi vs The Canara Bank
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18499 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC011237442023
======================================================
Mrs. Aarti Devi Wife of Mr. Shyam Kumar Verm,a Resident of Naya Bazar
Sansar Pokhar New Bypass Road Pachna Road Pribazar, Distsrict Lakhisarai,
Proprietor M/s Shyam Trading
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Canara Bank through the Managing Director 6648 112 JC Road
Halsurpete, Nagarathpete, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560001.
2. The Zonal Manager, Canara Bank , 3rd Floor Luv Khush Tower P.B. No.
195 Braj Kishore Path Budh Vihar, Salimpur Ahra Patan-01.
3. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Gaya.
4. The regional Manager, Canara Bank, Recovery Section, Gaya.
5. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : M/s Sumit Kumar Singh,
Anmol Kumar
Kumar Vikram
Raushan Kumar
Vivek Kumar, Advocates
Abhilasha Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
1. The Writ petition is filed for the
following reliefs:
“I) For issuance of an
appropriate writ/writs in the nature of
mandamus, commanding and directing the
respondents to quash and set aside
Possession Notice U/S 13(4) of
Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
2/23
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act herein referred to
SARFAESI Act dated 14.09.2023 and
covering letter dated 30.10.2023 issued by
the respondent Authorised Officer, Canara
Bank Gaya by which the respondent has
proposed to sale the mortgage properties.
II) Further for a direction to the
respondent to quash the notice U/S 13(2)
of SARFAESI Act dated 11.04.2023
contained in Ref. GAYARO/ RECOV/ 3288/
SHYAMTD/2023 by which the petitioner
was directed to pay rupees 6234681 in A/C
No. 3288261000026, rupees 733644 in A/C
No. 32887555000036, rupees 84789 in A/C
No. 3288746000003, 472603 in A/C No.
170001584740 and rupees 52183 in A/C
No. 181009465453. After taking loan
aforesaid the petitioner started business
but all of sudden on 04.03.2020 fire broke
out in his godown catch fire for that F.I.R
was lodged his business closed, in which
he got rupees 30 lakhs and consulted the
Bank for settlement of loan but the
respondent Bank took whole amount and
further issued their loan showing dues and
in the meantime pandemic covid-19 came.
The petitioner is ready to settle
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
3/23
the dispute with Bank, if the respondent
waive interest amount and fix easy
instalment.
For any other relief/ reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled to get.”
2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ
petition are that the petitioner, a businesswoman,
obtained a loan from Canara Bank, Lakhisarai
Branch, by mortgaging her property to establish
her business. She claims that her business suffered
losses, after her godown was destroyed by fire on
20.03.2020. The petitioner alleges that the Bank
initiated proceedings under Sections 13(2) and
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and issued a sale
notice dated 30.10.2023 without duly serving the
requisite notices upon her.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Bank initiated the proceedings
without proper service of the statutory notices and
without considering the circumstances affecting
the petitioner’s business. It is further submitted
that the petitioner is willing to repay the loan and
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
4/23
to settle the dues. The Learned counsel, therefore,
prays for appropriate relief against the impugned
proceedings and for an opportunity to settle the
loan account.
4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner. The Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the order
dated 19.02.2024, the petitioner has expressed her
willingness to repay the outstanding loan amount.
However, she disputes the Bank’s calculation,
contending that certain payments have not been
properly adjusted. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the petitioner has
suffered substantial losses, due to the destruction
of her godown by fire and seeks six months’ time
for settling the dues. Accordingly, a direction is
sought for the Bank to reconcile the loan account,
determine the outstanding amount and permit
repayment in instalments, without taking coercive
steps during the said period.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the judgment dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
5/23
10.09.2020 passed in CWJC No. 2503 of 2020
(Rajani Ranjan Sahu Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.)
and an order dated 10.03.2022 passed in CWJC
No. 3602 of 2022 (Anmol Kumar Vs.
Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India &
Ors. ).
6. A counter affidavit as well as a
supplementary counter affidavit have been filed
on behalf of the respondent Bank. The Learned
counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the
petitioner availed various credit facilities
aggregating to Rs. 68.10 lakh, but failed to
maintain regular repayment, resulting in
classification of the loan accounts as Non-
Performing Assets (NPA) on 10.04.2023. It is further
submitted that the Bank issued a demand notice
dated 11.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by a possession
notice dated 27.07.2023 under Section 13(4) of the
Act. The Learned counsel for the Bank contends
that the statutory notices were duly served upon
the petitioner, by Speed Post and was published in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
6/23
the local newspapers; hence, the allegation of
violation of the principles of natural justice is
misconceived.
7. The Learned counsel for the Bank further
submits that the total outstanding dues of the
petitioner stood at Rs. 66,01,795.51 as on
31.01.2024 and that the petitioner’s claim
regarding non-adjustment of payments is denied
by the Bank. It is also submitted that the petitioner
has an alternative statutory remedy under the
SARFAESI Act, 2002. Further, the Bank is required
to recover the outstanding dues in accordance with
its applicable guidelines. Accordingly, the Learned
counsel for the Bank prays for dismissal of the Writ
petition.
8. In support of the case of the respondent
Bank, the Learned counsel for the respondent have
placed reliance upon the judgment dated
22.09.2026 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 9826
of 2023 (Ashish Kumar Vs. THe Authorized Officer,
Canara Ban & anr). In the said judgment, this Court
took note of the observations made by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
7/23
Supreme Court in (1) State Bank of Travancore
Versus Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC
85, (2) United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati
Tondon & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110,
(3) Phr Invent Education Society Vs. UCO
Bank and others reported in (2024) 6 SCC
5179, (4) Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors.
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others. reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 782, (5) Celir LLP Vs. Bafna
Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2024 2
SCC 1, (6) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs.
Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023)
3 SCC 210 and (7) Shakeena Vs. Bank of India
& others. reported in 2019 INSC 922. In view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
India in the aforesaid decisions, this Court
dismissed the Writ petition.
9. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well the Learned counsel for the
Bank of India and perused the records.
10. This Court on 05.12.2024 has passed
the order, which reads as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
8/23
"Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the authorities have issued the
notice dated 28.11.2024 asking the
petitioner to vacate the residential premises
by tomorrow i.e., 06.12.2024. Learned
counsel states that the petitioner has
suffered huge losses in the business due to a
fire accident and, therefore, the petitioner
could not pay the installments due to the
Bank. Learned counsel on instructions states
that the petitioner is willing to settle the
entire loan account with the bank provided
some installments are given. Learned
counsel prays this Court to stay the notice
dated 28.11.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank opposes the prayer sought
by the petitioner and states that the
petitioner has not paid a single rupee to the
credit of the loan account from the February,
2024 on wards. Counsel seeks time for
replying to the I.A. No. 01 of 2024.
3. Having regard to above
submissions, there shall be interim stay of
dispossession of the petitioner from the
subject premises subject to the petitioner
depositing an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs to the
credit of the loan account within a period of
fifteen days from today. In case the
petitioner does not comply with the
directions of this Court, the authorities are
free to take possession of the subject
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
9/23
property. It is also clarified that in case the
petitioner is desirous of settling the loan
account, he can approach the Bank
authorities seeking payment of the balance
loan amount in installments or for extending
any OTS scheme and the same shall be
considered by the Bank on its own merits."
11. Further this Court has also passed
order on 21.01.2025, which reads as under:
"Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner-State that pursuant
to the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by
this Court, the petitioner deposited an
amount of Rs. 15 lakhs but with some delay.
Learned Counsel has stated that the
petitioner could not deposit the amount of
Rs. 15 lakhs within the time stipulated by
this Court, for reasons beyond his control,
however, subsequently he has deposited
Rs. 15 lakhs. Learned Counsel has further
stated that the Bank-authorities have
locked the dwelling unit of the petitioner
and the petitioner is rendered homeless.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Bank has stated that the
petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.
15 lakhs but with some delay and has not
rebutted the other contentions made by the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
10/23
3. Having regard to the averments
of petition and also taking into account that
the subject property is a dwelling unit, the
authorities are directed to unlock the
premises and permit the petitioner to stay
in the premises, within one week from
today. It is further ordered that the
petitioner shall approach the Bank
immediately with a proposal to clear the
outstanding amounts within three weeks
from today. On Such proposal be given, the
Bank shall consider the same."
12. Further, this Court on 27.03.2025 has
passed the following order :
"Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent-Bank seeks time
for complying with the direction given by
this Court on 21.01.2025. Learned counsel
has stated that though the Bank has filed
LPA No. 95 of 2025 before this Hon’ble
Court against the order dated 21.01.2025,
the same was dismissed on 04.03.2025.
Thereafter, SLP filed by the Respondent-
Bank also was not entertained by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Having regard to the same, the
authority shall comply with the direction of
this Court dated 21.01.2025 positively by
the next date of hearing."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
11/23
13. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this
Court in L.P.A. No. 95 of 2025 (The Canara
Bank and ORs. Vs. Mrs. Aarti Devi) passed
order dated 04.03.2025, which reads as under:
"2. The order dated 21.01.2025
passed in CWJC No. 18499 of 2023 is
under challenge in the present appeal.
3. It appears that a SARFAESI
proceeding was initiated against the
respondent and his mortgaged house was
taken possession of. However, the Court
had directed the respondent to pay
upfront an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs and a
suggested plan of liquidating the loan, till
which time, the Bank was directed to
restrain itself from taking possession of
the mortgaged property.
4. Rs. 15 lakhs was deposited by
the respondent, but belatedly. In the
meantime, the Bank had taken
possession of the premises in question
amounting to total eviction and ouster of
the respondent.
5. This was again challenged by
the respondent vide CWJC No. 18499 of
2023, wherein a Single Judge of this Court
directed the appellant-Bank to restore the
possession of the respondent within a
week from the date of passing of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
12/23
order i.e. from 21.01.2025 and the
respondent was directed to approach the
Bank immediately with a proposal to clear
the outstanding amount within three
weeks from that date.
6. The learned counsel for the
respondent agrees that till date the
premises have not been unlocked and he
is still shelterless.
7. Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, the
learned counsel for the appellant-Bank,
submits that no sooner the respondent
shall contact the Bank office, the
premises in question would be unlocked,
but with the condition that within a period
of 15 days, a schedule would be produced
by the respondent with respect to
liquidation of the loan amount.
8. The order dated 21.01.2025
be complied with in the first instance,
whereafter the rest of the issues shall be
taken up for consideration in this appeal.
9. This order ought not to be
understood as any decision on the merits
of the case of either the appellant or the
respondent.
10. The respondent shall also, by
the next date, file an affidavit enclosing a
copy of the plan which he shall submit
before the Bank with respect to
liquidation of loan."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
13/23
14. Against the aforesaid order, the
Canara Bank filed Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No. 8015 of 2025 before Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, which has been disposed of vide order
dated 24.03.2025, which reads as follows :
"We are not inclined to entertain the
present special leave petition. We leave it
open to the petitioner to raise the question of
maintainability of the writ petition before the
Division Bench/writ Court. The plea, if raised,
will be decided as per law.
Further, the petitioner will be at
liberty to move an appropriate application
before the Division Bench of the High Court,
stating that unlocking of the doors would not
mean that the possession of the premises
has been given back to the respondents. If
any such application is filed, the same will be
dealt with in accordance with law.
Recording the aforesaid, special
leave petition is disposed of.
We, however, give liberty to the
respondents to approach this Court for recall
of this order, if required and necessary.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of."
15. Later, the Division Bench of this Court
in LPA No. 95 of 2025 (The Canara Bank and ORs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
14/23
Vs. Mrs. Aarti Devi) has passed order dated
13.10.2025, which reads as follows:
"The appellants have preferred
present LPA dated 21.01.2025 passed in
CWJC No. 18499 of 2023. It is in the nature
of interim order.
2. Learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that appellants had
preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
8015 of 2025 in identical matter against the
order dated 04.03.2025 in LPA No. 95 of
2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in which the following
observations have been made:-
“We are not inclined to
entertain the present special leave
petition. We leave it open to the
petitioner to raise the question of
maintainability of the writ petition
before the Division Bench/writ Court.
The plea, if raised, will be decided as
per law.
Further, the petitioner will be
at liberty to move an appropriate
application before the Division Bench
of the High Court, stating that
unlocking of the doors would not
mean that the possession of the
premises has been given back to the
respondents. If any such application is
filed, the same will be dealt with in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
15/23
accordance with law.
Recording the aforesaid, the
special leave petition is disposed of.
We, however, give liberty to
the respondents to approach this
Court for recall of this order, if
required and necessary.
Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.”
3. Perusal of the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is related to maintainability of
writ petition is to be decided before the
division bench/writ court. Whereas, this Court
identical matters are decided by the learned
Single Judge, hence, the present LPA is
against interim order passed in CWJC No.
18499 of 2023 dated 21.01.2025. In the light
of the observation made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 24.03.2025 in the
aforementioned cited order, the appellants
have a remedy before the learned Single
Judge in view of the administrative allotment
of cases/roster to the extent that learned
Single Judge has been allotted the subject
matter of deciding CWJC.
4. In the light of these facts and
circumstances, the present LPA is against the
interim order, hence, we proposed to disposed
of the present LPA with a request to the
learned Single Judge to decide the CWJC No.
18499 of 2023 at the earliest in the light of
Hon’ble Supreme Court observation. Till
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
16/23
deciding CWJC No. 18499 of 2023 on merit,
order dated 21.01.2025 passed in CWJC No.
18499 of 2023 shall not be given effect to.
5. Accordingly, the present LPA No.
95 of 2025 stands disposed of."
16. The petitioner has challenged the
action taken by the respondent-Bank under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, particularly
in relation to the proposed sale the mortgaged
properties. The respondents have raised a
preliminary objection regarding the maintainability
of the Writ petition on the ground that the
petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory
remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
17. In the case of State Bank of
Travancore (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“ 15. It is the solemn duty of the
court to apply the correct law without
waiting for an objection to be raised by a
party, especially when the law stands well
settled. Any departure, if permissible, has
to be for reasons discussed, of the case
falling under a defined exception, duly
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
17/23
discussed after noticing the relevant law.
In financial matters grant of ex parte
interim orders can have a deleterious
effect and it is not sufficient to say that
the aggrieved has the remedy to move for
vacating the interim order. Loans by
financial institutions are granted from
public money generated at the taxpayer's
expense. Such loan does not become the
property of the person taking the loan,
but retains its character of public money
given in a fiduciary capacity as
entrustment by the public. Timely
repayment also ensures liquidity to
facilitate loan to another in need, by
circulation of the money and cannot be
permitted to be blocked by frivolous
litigation by those who can afford the
luxury of the same. The caution required,
as expressed in Satyawati Tondon [ United
Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon , (2010)
8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] , has
also not been kept in mind before passing
the impugned interim order: (SCC pp.
123-24, para 46)
“ 46 . It must be remembered
that stay of an action initiated by the
State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities for
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
18/23
recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc.
seriously impedes execution of
projects of public importance and
disables them from discharging their
constitutional and legal obligations
towards the citizens. In cases
relating to recovery of the dues of
banks, financial institutions and
secured creditors, stay granted by
the High Court would have serious
adverse impact on the financial
health of such bodies/institutions,
which (sic will) ultimately prove
detrimental to the economy of the
nation. Therefore, the High Court
should be extremely careful and
circumspect in exercising its
discretion to grant stay in such
matters. Of course, if the petitioner is
able to show that its case falls within
any of the exceptions carved out in
Baburam Prakash Chandra
Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad
[ Baburam Prakash Chandra
Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad ,
AIR 1969 SC 556] , Whirlpool Corpn.
v. Registrar of Trade Marks
[ Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of
Trade Marks , (1998) 8 SCC 1] and
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
19/23
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd. [ Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. , (2003) 2 SCC
107] and some other judgments,
then the High Court may, after
considering all the relevant
parameters and public interest, pass
an appropriate interim order.
16. The Writ petition ought not to
have been entertained and the interim
order granted for the mere asking without
assigning special reasons, and that too
without even granting opportunity to the
appellant to contest the maintainability of
the Writ petition and failure to notice the
subsequent developments in the
interregnum. The opinion of the Division
Bench that the counter-affidavit having
subsequently been filed, stay/modification
could be sought of the interim order
cannot be considered sufficient
justification to have declined interference.
17. We cannot help but
disapprove the approach of the High
Court for reasons already noticed in
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem
Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. [ Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg.
Works (P) Ltd. , (1997) 6 SCC 450] ,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
20/23
observing: (SCC p. 463, para 32)
“ 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.
18. The impugned orders are
therefore contrary to the law laid down by
this Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution and unsustainable. They are
therefore set aside and the appeal is
allowed.
19. All questions of law and fact
remain open for consideration in any
application by the aggrieved before the
statutory forum under the S ARFAESI Act."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
21/23
18. In the case of PHR Invent
Educational Society Vs UCO Bank and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 4845 of 2024), their Lordships of
the Apex Court have held as follows:
“Ordinarily the High Court would
not entertain a petition u/Art. 226 if an
effective remedy is available to the
aggrieved person…”
19. Likewise, in the matter of Celir LLP Vs
Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.,
reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 , their Lordships of the
Apex Court have held as follows:-
“ 97 . This Court has time and
again, reminded the High Courts that
they should not entertain petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective remedy is available to the
aggrieved person under the provisions
of the SARFAESI Act …”
20. In the case of United Bank of India
Vs Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in
(2010) 8 SCC 110 , their Lordships of the Apex
Court have held as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
22/23
“ 43 . … the High Court
overlooked the settled law that the
High Court will ordinarily not entertain
a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is
available to the aggrieved person and
that this rule applies with greater
rigour in matters involving recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, other types of public
money and the dues of banks and
other financial institutions …”
It is further held:-
“… the High Court must insist
that before availing remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution, a
person must exhaust the remedies
available under the relevant statute.”
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the
aforesaid judgments, has categorically held that
the High Court ordinarily should not entertain a
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
where an effective statutory alternative remedy is
available to the aggrieved person.
22. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18499 of 2023 dt.29-10-2026
23/23
present Writ petition is dismissed in view of the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the aforesaid judgments. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the
appropriate statutory remedy available to him in
accordance with law.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date