Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5212/2026 of GEETANJALI MAZUMDAR AND ANR Vs ICICI BANK AND ANR on 27 September 2026
GAHC010181802026 2026:GAU- AS:14448-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5212/2026 GEETANJALI MAZUMDAR AND ANR W/O PRANJAL JYOTI MAZUMDAR, R/O ANIL NAGAR H/NO - 12, RAJGARH LINK ROAD, GUWAHATI - 781007, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM 2:
GAHC010181802026
2026:GAU-
AS:14448-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5212/2026
GEETANJALI MAZUMDAR AND ANR
W/O PRANJAL JYOTI MAZUMDAR, R/O ANIL NAGAR H/NO - 12, RAJGARH
LINK ROAD, GUWAHATI - 781007, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2: PRANJAL JYOTI MAZUMDAR
S/O LATE JOGENDRA NATH MAJUMDAR
R/O ANIL NAGAR H/NO - 12
RAJGARH LINK ROAD
GUWAHATI - 781007
KAMRUPM
ASSAM
P.O. ULUBARI
P.S. GEETANAGAR
VERSUS
ICICI BANK AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, REGISTERED
OFFICE AT ICICI BANK TOWER, NEAR CHAKLI CIRCLE OLD PADRA ROAD, VODODARA 390007, GUJARAT, CORPORATE OFFICE AT ICICI BANK
TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI - 400051
2:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
ICICI BANK LIMITED
FIRST FLOOR
SHANTI COMPLEX
G.S ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. MEHDI HASSAN, MR. M R SODIAL,MUFIDUL ISLAM,MS
S Z HAYAT
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I C I C I BANK, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
28.09.2026 (K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Ms. S. Z. Hayat, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.07.2026, passed by the learned Member, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in S.A. No. 50/2025, with I.A. No. 252/2025- Geetanjali Mazumdar Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.
3. It would be suffice to mention that the petitioners had availed housing loan against which the purchased flat was offered as mortgage and accordingly, security interest was created in respect of the flat which was purchased by availing the said housing loan. As per the projected claim of the respondents, the housing loan account of the petitioner No. 1 was declared to be a Non- performing Asset (NPA) as on 10.12.2024. The demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 10.12.2024, wherein the dues of the petitioners has been quantified at Rs. 62,07,786.89 with interest thereon. On non-payment of the demanded dues, the authorized Officer of the respondents had issued possession notice to the petitioners under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, thereby calling upon the petitioners to repay the sum of Rs.
62,07,786 within 60 (sixty) days and also informing that the symbolic possession of the security asset was taken over under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the SARFAESI Rules.
4. Aggrieved by the said taking over of the symbolic possession of the security asset vide notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, and assailed the same, which was registered as SARFAESI Application No. 50/2025. The learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, by impugned order dated 28.07.2026, dismissed the said S.A. No. 50/2025 with I.A. No. 252/2025.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 2, in the meanwhile has filed Money suit No. 124/20244 against one Debashish Baruah before the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, claiming recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,66,000/- with interest and compensation etc.
6. It is submitted that the possession notice and the steps taken by the respondents are in clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India and in derogation of the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and administrative fair play.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the SARFAESI Application filed by the petitioners was dismissed, the statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is available under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Accordingly, it is submitted that as an efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioners, this writ petition would not be maintainable.
8. In this case, it is not the stand of the petitioners in this writ petition that they have not availed the loan. It is also not denied that the principal amount due and interest payable thereon to the respondent No. 1, Bank has not been paid within due date. Thus, there is no material from which it can be inferred that classification of the loan account as NPA was not justified or not lawful.
9. There is no material on record to show that any fraud committed by the respondents in respect of the loan account of the petitioners, where the petitioners are co. borrower. Under such circumstances, when the petitioners have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, for reliefs which can be granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, on dismissal of the S.A. No. 50/2025, ordinarily an appeal would lie before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, as a statutory remedy of filing an appeal is available to the petitioners, the Court is disinclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to entertain the writ petition filed to assail the order passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No. 50/2025.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in view of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal being available under the SARFAESI Act.
12. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
13. However, it is provided that dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the petitioners to approach the Jurisdictional Appellate Tribunal to assail the order under challenge. For the sake of clarification, it is noted that though this writ petition was filed on 24.08.2026, but requisite Court fees was not paid, and the said defect was rectified only on 19.09.2026. This matter was listed for the first time today.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant