MAHAMAYI STONE CURSHER vs HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED

Court
Chhattisgarh High Court

1

CGHC010328162026 2026:CGHC:38304
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4432 of 2026
1 - Mahamayi Stone Cursher Through The Proprietor Anurag Mishra
Aged About 38 Years S/o Late Satish Mishra R/o Civil Lines, Raipur,
Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
2 - Mura Stone Crusher, Proprietor Satish Mishra (Now Dead) Through
The Legal Heirs Anurag Mishra Aged About 38 Years S/o Late Satish
Mishra R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Mahamayi Traders, Through The Proprietor Smt. Swarnalata Mishra
Aged About 71 Years W/o Late Satish Mishra R/o Civil Lines, Raipur,
Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited Through The Authorized Officer,
Corporate Office Development Guindy 27, A, Industrial Estate Guindy
Chennai -600032
2 - Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, Ground Floor,
Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate

2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
31.08.2026
1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the
possession notice dated 12.08.2026 issued by the respondent-
finance company under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”), as also the
order dated 03.08.2026 whereby the representation/objections
submitted by the petitioners have been rejected.
2. Following reliefs have been sought in this petition:-
“10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records pertaining to the subject
matter.
10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned Possession notice dt.
12.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the
respondents.
10.3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set aside the interest levied for the undue delay and
prolonged pendency of the stretched matter and
harassment suffered by the petitioners throughout
the years due to non compliance of the respondent
authorities.

3
10.4. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow any other relief which the Court deems fit and
proper with cost of petition.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners had availed loan facility from the respondent-finance
company against the secured property and, on account of
financial difficulties arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, certain
defaults occurred. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier
approached this Court in WPC No.3539 of 2021 and in the
subsequent proceedings, wherein directions were issued to the
respondents to consider the petitioners' representations before
taking coercive measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI
Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the
aforesaid orders, the detailed objections/representation dated
20.07.2026 submitted by the petitioners have been rejected by the
impugned order dated 03.08.2026 without proper consideration of
the issues raised therein. It is further submitted that the petitioners
had specifically raised the issue regarding the Group Credit
Protection Plus Insurance Scheme in respect of deceased
borrower Late Satish Mishra, the levy of interest and penal
charges during the period of delay, and had also expressed their
willingness to settle the genuine and undisputed dues to the
extent of ₹1,25,00,000/-. It is further submitted that, despite the
aforesaid representation and objections, the respondent-finance
company has proceeded to issue the possession notice dated

4
12.08.2026 demanding an amount of approximately
₹7,55,56,659/-. According to learned counsel, the correctness of
the amount claimed, the applicability of the insurance policy, the
legality of the interest and penal charges and the validity of the
measures initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are
all matters which require adjudication. Learned counsel for the
petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners are ready and
willing to avail the statutory remedy available before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, at this stage, appropriate liberty
may be granted to approach the competent Debts Recovery
Tribunal against the impugned measures.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
5. From the pleadings and submission made before this Court, it is
evident that the principal grievance of the petitioners relates to the
measures taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act,
including the possession notice dated 12.08.2026, as well as the
correctness of the amount claimed and the objections raised by
the petitioners with regard to insurance coverage, interest, penal
charges and other aspects of the loan account.
6. The SARFAESI Act provides a specific and efficacious statutory
remedy to an aggrieved person against the measures taken by
the secured creditor under Section 13(4), by approaching the
competent Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said

5
Act. The issues sought to be raised by the petitioners involve
disputed questions relating to the loan account, computation of
outstanding dues, applicability of the insurance policy and validity
of the measures taken by the secured creditor, which can
appropriately be examined by the competent Tribunal.
7. In view of the availability of the statutory remedy, this Court is not
inclined to examine the merits of the rival claims in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. At the same time, considering the submission made on
behalf of the petitioners that they intend to avail the statutory
remedy, it would be appropriate to grant them reasonable time to
approach the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case or on the rival contentions of the parties, the present writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach
the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act by filing an appropriate application/appeal against
the possession notice dated 12.08.2026 and other consequential
measures, within a period of 20 days from today.
9. If the petitioners approach the competent Debts Recovery
Tribunal within the aforesaid period of 20 days, the respondent-
secured creditor shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to the
possession notice dated 12.08.2026 against the petitioners or the
secured asset for a period of 20 days from today.

6
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, including the
issues relating to the insurance policy, outstanding amount, levy of
interest/penal charges, or the validity of the measures initiated
under the SARFAESI Act. All such questions are left open for
consideration by the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal in
accordance with law.
11. The competent Debts Recovery Tribunal, if approached
within the aforesaid period, shall consider the application of the
petitioners in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observation made in the present order.
12. With the aforesaid liberty and directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of .
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha