WP/31896/2025 of PATHAN HAZEERA KHANAM Vs THE BRANCH MANAGER on 1 April 2026

1. This writ petition is for setting aside notice dated 21.08.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “SARFAESI Act”).

2. It is submitted that petitioner and her husband are joint absolute owners and possessors of immovable property as described in the writ petition. Petitioner availed of loan facility of Rs.35 lakhs from respondent No.1, and equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the property in question was created on 26.07.2024. After deposit of two instalments, petitioner is stated to have approached respondent for foreclosing the loan by deposit of one-time lumpsum payment without future interest. It is stated that respondents refused for closure. Further instalments were admittedly not deposited by petitioner, and ultimately, notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 21.08.2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent failed to furnish a statement of account or breakup of dues as to how they are demanding an exorbitant amount of Rs.58,12,634/- while including penal charges, future interest, cheque bounce charges, and other unspecified components. There is a clear-cut violation of principles of natural justice and that respondent is not at liberty to include future interest in the amount in question. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent has refuted the averments on behalf of the petitioner. While replying to the counter-filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that petitioner committed persistent default in repayment, resulting in loan account being classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 09.04.2025. Thereafter, notice dated 24.08.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to petitioner and guarantors, which has been duly acknowledged. Outstanding amount was quantified in said notice and detailed breakup of all dues was reflected. Therefore, it is incorrect that breakup of the amount in question was not provided.

5. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that no objections whatsoever were filed by petitioner under Section 13(A) of the SARFAESI Act. Symbolic possession of secured asset was taken on 30.10.2025 in accordance with Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and possession notice under Section 13(4) was duly affixed on the property. Subsequently, physical possession thereof was taken on 19.01.2026 with the assistance of Executive Magistrate in proceedings under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act. Respondents also issued an intending sale notice dated 23.02.2026 under Rule 8(6), informing petitioner that property would be sold after 30 days; final opportunity was granted to her to redeem the property in terms of Section 13(8), however, no action has been taken by petitioner in this respect till date. It is further submitted that no formal request was ever received from petitioner with respect to foreclosure or early closure. Objection is raised by learned counsel for petitioner qua maintainability of this writ petition itself. Dismissal thereof is prayed for.

6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. Availing of loan facility by petitioner in July 2024 and subsequent default after two months; declaration of petitioner’s account as NPA; issuance of notice under Section 13(2), and further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are all a matter of record.

7. At this juncture, it is to be noted that interference in matters like the present has to be minimal and actuated only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. An efficacious alternative remedy is admittedly available to petitioner. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, that High Court should normally not interfere in matters like the present. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu & ors.1, in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others2, in M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another3.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which calls for interference by this Court, at this stage, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. All 1 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 34 2 2010 (8) SCC 110 3 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 771

arguments as raised before us are very well within the realm of consideration by learned Tribunal.

9. This writ petition is thus dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail the remedies (ies) as may be available to her in accordance with law, while raising all available pleas. There is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter pending applications.

Pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of, accordingly.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE

(NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE

Date: 02.04.2026 MS

HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION NO: 31896 of 2025

Date: 02.04.2026 MS