Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 09-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Verma, Neela Devi, Abhay Kumar Verma, Avinash Kumar Verma (family of the late Prabhat Kumar Verma).
  • Respondents: Union of India (Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna), State of Bihar (District Magistrate, Patna), Canara Bank (Authorized Officer‑cum‑Chief Manager, Assets Recovery Management Branch, Patna), M/s Nissa Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Alka Verma (widow of the deceased), Shanvi Verma (minor daughter, natural guardian Alka Verma), Gaurav Ashish.
  • Relief Sought: (i) Writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 & 3 to restore possession of the residential house at Sri Krishna Nagar, Kidwaipuri, Patna; (ii) Certiorari to quash DRT order dated 07‑07‑2023 (S.A. No. 59/2023) dismissing interlocutory application; (iii) Certiorari to quash vacation notices dated 18‑01‑2023 and 03‑07‑2023; (iv) Declaration that bank’s action violated Section 146 of the Contract Act and was arbitrary; (v) Declaration that DRT order violated CPC Section 2(11); (vi) Any other relief.
  • Background Facts:
  • The deceased director, Late Prabhat Kumar Verma, had mortgaged his self‑acquired residential house and two company flats to Canara Bank for an overdraft facility of Rs. 1.20 crore.
  • Prabhat Kumar Verma died on 01‑05‑2018; his widow Alka Verma and minor daughter Shanvi continued residing in the house.
  • The company’s account was classified as NPA on 30‑07‑2019; the bank issued a demand notice on 20‑08‑2019 and a possession notice on 06‑11‑2019.
  • The widow and daughter challenged these notices in S.A. No. 224 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which on 26‑08‑2022 quashed the demand notice.
  • The bank re‑issued a demand notice on 12‑09‑2022 and a possession notice on 27‑12‑2022 covering all mortgaged properties, including the residential house.
  • Concurrently, the bank filed O.A. No. 710 of 2019 under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRT, by judgment dated 02‑09‑2022, ordered attachment of the mortgaged properties, and the Recovery Officer issued a warrant of attachment on 08‑02‑2023.
  • The bank obtained permission from the District Magistrate and issued a vacation notice on 03‑07‑2023 despite the pending attachment order. Petitioners filed S.A. No. 59 of 2023 with an interlocutory application for stay; the DRT dismissed both on 07‑07‑2023, after which petitioners were dispossessed.
  • A Title Partition Suit No. 185 of 2021 concerning the same property is pending before a civil court, with the bank and legal heirs impleaded.
  • Petitioners’ Submissions: They argued they are not borrowers, have independent possessory rights, and that the District Magistrate could not lawfully order dispossession without examining their claim. They contended the bank’s selective possession of the residential house was arbitrary, that the earlier attachment order barred the vacation notice, and that the pending partition suit precludes bank action.
  • Bank’s Submissions: The bank asserted the writ is not maintainable because petitioners have an efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act (appeal against DRT order) and Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (appeal against recovery officer’s order). It maintained that the petitioners’ ownership and possession issues are factual disputes to be decided by the civil court, and that the bank acted in strict compliance with statutory procedures.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The core grievance concerns dispossession under SARFAESI proceedings; however, the petitioners have already approached the DRT, and the DRT’s order dated 07‑07‑2023 can be appealed under the SARFAESI Act.
  • Questions of title, possession, and the effect of the pending partition suit are factual matters unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • The coexistence of attachment under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and subsequent SARFAESI actions is permissible; the statutory framework provides mechanisms to resolve any conflict.
  • Supreme Court precedents (PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors, United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon) were cited, emphasizing that a High Court should not entertain a writ when an effective statutory remedy is available.
  • Final Outcome
  • The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
  • Petitioners are directed to pursue the appropriate appellate remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.
  • Any interlocutory applications, if filed, stand disposed of.

Topics: SARFAESI Act, Writ Petition Dismissal