Facts
The petitioner, a secured creditor, obtained an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain, dated 13 October 2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the secured property.
Source reference: p.1Possession was taken and recorded by panchnama, but Respondents 3 and 4 allegedly re-entered the property.
Source reference: p.1After its complaint to the authorities did not result in effective action, the petitioner filed this Article 226 petition seeking restoration of possession, police assistance, and action concerning the alleged trespass.
Source reference: p.1The petitioner relied on Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. The District Magistrate, District Gwalior & Ors., W.P. No. 1681 of 2025, decided 16 June 2025; the State did not dispute the legal position stated in that decision.
Source reference: pp.1–2Issues
Whether, after possession had been taken under an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the competent authority could assist the secured creditor in restoring possession following the alleged unlawful re-entry by the respondents.
Source reference: pp.2–3Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for registration of an FIR against Respondents 3 and 4.
Source reference: pp.1, 3–4Law Applied
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides the statutory basis for assistance in taking possession of secured assets.
Source reference: pp.2–3Applying Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. The District Magistrate, District Gwalior & Ors. (W.P. No. 1681 of 2025, decided 16 June 2025), the Court held that there is no legal bar to the competent authority re-executing an order under Section 14 or providing necessary assistance where a borrower re-enters the secured asset after possession has been handed to the secured creditor.
Source reference: pp.2–3The Court also relied on Capri Global Housing Finance Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 24112 of 2026, decided 13 July 2026), which followed that principle and directed assistance to restore possession.
Source reference: pp.2–3Reasoning
The Court treated the petitioner’s account of initial possession under the Section 14 order and subsequent re-entry as falling within the principle established by the cited decisions.
Source reference: p.3It reasoned that the petitioner should not be left without a remedy merely because the earlier order had already been executed; allowing the alleged re-entry to continue would undermine the purpose of the SARFAESI proceedings.
Source reference: p.3As to the FIR, the Court left the petitioner to approach the competent police authority, which must consider the request and act, if warranted, in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Court allowed and disposed of the petition.
It directed Respondent No. 1, the competent authority, to provide necessary assistance, including police assistance if required, to dispossess Respondents 3 and 4 and restore physical possession of the secured property to the petitioner in accordance with law and the Section 14 order dated 13 October 2025.
Source reference: p.4The petitioner was granted liberty to seek FIR registration from the competent police authority; no FIR was ordered directly by the Court.
Source reference: p.4No order as to costs.
Source reference: p.4Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20021
Original Court PDF
India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd Through Ist Authorized Signatory Shri Parteek GuptavsState Of M.P. Through Tehsildar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
