Authority: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Order Date: 15.07.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Sunita Rohilla and another; Respondents: Aditya Birla Capital Ltd and another.
- Petitioners allege their brother, Praveen Kumar, borrowed ₹76 lakh from respondent in 2021 and died on 20‑Nov‑2025.
- Respondent initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, issuing a notice dated 17‑Feb‑2026 (section 13(2)), a possession notice dated 16‑May‑2026, and a notice under section 13(8) dated 1‑Jun‑2026, seeking sale of petitioners' share in the ancestral property.
- Petitioners contend their share was never pledged or mortgaged and sought:
A. Quashing of all SARFAESI notices.
B. Mandamus directing respondent not to sell their share.
C. Mandamus directing sale of only one‑third share if necessary.
D. Mandamus directing inquiry into officers who made an equitable mortgage without petitioners' consent.
- The Court observed that petitioners have a statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and therefore the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is disposed of; petitioners are directed to approach the DRT for relief.
- A stay is imposed for three weeks, prohibiting any coercive steps on the petitioners' share of the ancestral property during this period.
Topics: Legal Dispute, SARFAESI Act