Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Yasmeen Jan Wani Age: 46 vs Secretary on 4 March, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH 2026:JKLHC-SGR:35-DB
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 2545/2024
Reserved on: 18.02.2026
Pronounced on: 04.03.2026
Uploaded on: 04.03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: FULL
Yasmeen Jan Wani Age: 46
W/o Nissar Jan Wani
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
R/o Sanat Nagar Srinagar 190014;
M. No: C/o 9797711778
Vs.
1. Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Govt of India, Jeevan Deep Building
Sansad Marg New Delhi 110001
[email protected] Ph: 011-23340222
2. Chief General Manager
Reserve Bank of India.
Central Office Building
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road
Mumbai-400001
3. Banking Ombudsman
C/o Reserve Bank of India,
Rail Head Complex, Jammu-180012;
Tel: 019-2477617
Email: [email protected]
4. General Manager, Axis Bank Ltd
Sahara City Center, IG Road
Opp Exhibition Ground Near
Jahangir Chowk Srinagar J&K
5. Branch Manager, Axis Bank,
Khasra No: 1287, Brari-Nambal,
Munawarabad Chowk, Srinagar, 190010,
M.No. 7006275889.
...Respondent(s)
WP (C) No. 2547/2024
CCP (D) Nos. 51/2025 & 52/2025
Mohammad Hatim, Age 47 ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
S/o Nissar Jan Wani
R/o Sanat Nagar, Srinagar 190014
M. No. C/o 9797711778
WP (C) No. 2545/2024 c/w 2547/2024 CCP (D) Nos. 51/2025 & 52/2025 Page 1 of 5
2026:JKLHC-SGR:35-DB
Vs. ....Respondent(s)
1. Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Govt of India, Jeevan Deep Building
Sansad Marg New Delhi 110001
[email protected] Ph: 011-23340222
2. Chief General Manager
Reserve Bank of India.
Central Office Building
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road
Mumbai-400001
3. Banking Ombudsman
C/o Reserve Bank of India,
Rail Head Complex, Jammu-180012;
Tel: 019-2477617
Email: [email protected]
4. General Manager, Axis Bank Ltd
Sahara City Center, IG Road
Opp Exhibition Ground Near
Jahangir Chowk Srinagar J&K
5. Branch Manager, Axis Bank,
Khasra No: 1287, Brari-Nambal,
Munawarabad Chowk, Srinagar, 190010,
M.No. 7006275889.
Through: Mr. Arshid Andrabi, Adv. for petitioners. ...For petitioner(s)
Through: Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI with
Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Parihar, Adv.
Mr. Ishrat Maqbool Bhat, Adv. ...For respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Shahzad Azeem-J:
1. In these clubbed writ petitions, the auction letters issued by the
respondent-Bank for auctioning the pledged gold ornaments form the subject
matter of challenge, therefore, we propose to dispose of these writ petitions
by a common judgment.
WP (C) No. 2545/2024 c/w 2547/2024 CCP (D) Nos. 51/2025 & 52/2025 Page 2 of 5
2. At the outset, we place on record that the averments in the writ
2026:JKLHC-SGR:35-DB
petitions being vague, confusing and unclear, therefore, a concise and
perceivable narration of facts is set out below without strictly going by the
pleadings.
3. The petitioners have availed the gold loan facility floated by the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Axis Bank, and as a security have pledged the gold
ornaments. At this stage, it is noteworthy that in WP (C) No. 2547/2024, the
petitioner-Mohammad Hatim, is said to have availed gold loan facility to the
tune of Rs. 4,79,500/- whereas, in WP (C) No. 2545/2024 the petitioner-
Yasmeen Jan Wani, has availed loan facility to the tune of 18,52,300/-
respectively.
4. It appears that the loan accounts of the petitioners have turned
irregular, accordingly, declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and as a
corollary thereof, the respondent-Bank has issued auction letters for
auctioning the pledged gold ornaments kept as securities while availing the
loan facility.
5. The grievance of the petitioners as discernible from the pleadings is
that the respondent-Bank has initiated the process of auctioning the pledged
gold ornaments without following the provisions of Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act], besides, the respondent-Bank has proceeded
without taking into consideration the appropriate scheme, including One
Time Settlement schemes, etc.
6. Further, the case set up by the petitioners is that they were constrained
to institute civil suits which are pending before the Court of 3rd Additional
Munsiff, Srinagar. The petitioners have also made reference to WP(C) No.
1185/2024 titled Riyaz Ahmad Wani vs. J&K Bank Ltd. & Anr. and
WP(C) No. 2429/2023 titled M/s Hotel Alpine Ridge & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Ors. and went onto submit that though the Court has granted
respite, but later on their petitions were dismissed.
7. From the averments made in the writ petitions, it is seen that the
petitioners have filed these petitions on the assumption that as if the bank
has initiated the auction process in respect of pledged gold ornaments under
WP (C) No. 2545/2024 c/w 2547/2024 CCP (D) Nos. 51/2025 & 52/2025 Page 3 of 5
the SARFAESI Act, which is perhaps why they have made the reference of
2026:JKLHC-SGR:35-DB
the judgment passed by this Court in, M/s Hotel Alpine Ridge & Ors. vs.
Union of India and Ors; wherein the Court held in favour of
maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in respect of action of a bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,
by holding that the alternate statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act via the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh does not
constitute an efficacious and accessible remedy for litigants residing in the
Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
8. Undisputedly, the petitioners have availed the loan facility from the
respondent-Bank and, as a security have pledged gold ornaments. If this be
the position, then the action of the bank to auction the pledged gold
ornaments does not fall under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, in view of
the bar contained under Section 31(b), that unequivocally bars the
applicability of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, inter alia in so far a
pledge of movables within the meaning of Section 172 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 is concerned.
9. A pledge under Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act is the bailment
of goods, as security for payment of a debt and likewise in so far as the case
on hand is concerned, the pledge of the gold ornaments/jewellery by the
petitioners as security for re-payment of loan amount.
10. Under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act, any security interest created
in favor of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of
the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of
the SARFAESI Act.
11. At the same time, the word “Security Interest” is defined under
Section 2 (1) (zf) of the SARFAESI Act, which means right, title, or interest
of any kind, other than those specified in Section 31, upon property created
in favour of any secured creditor and includes–
(i) ……..
(ii) ………
12. Therefore, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the secured
creditor can enforce the security interest except in respect of the cases as are
WP (C) No. 2545/2024 c/w 2547/2024 CCP (D) Nos. 51/2025 & 52/2025 Page 4 of 5
specified in Section 31, and Section 31(b) excludes the applicability of the
2026:JKLHC-SGR:35-DB
provisions of the SARFAESI Act insofar as pledge of movables within the
meaning of Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act is concerned.
Accordingly, in view of the exclusion clause contained under Section 31(b)
of the SARFAESI Act, the writ petitions filed against the action of the bank
in issuing the auction letter for auctioning the pledged gold ornaments is not
maintainable.
13. Notwithstanding the bar contained under Section 31(b) of the
SARFAESI Act, the petitioners are on admission that they have already filed
civil suits which are pending disposal before the Court of learned 3rd
Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, in respect of same subject matters.
14. Let us assume for a moment that petitioners have filed the instant writ
petitions under the bonafide belief, as if the auction letters have been issued
by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and
thus they have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court,
but again question arises as to whether once they have chosen to file the
civil suits in respect of same subject matter, whether writ petition in such
scenario is maintainable. In this regard notably, under the Doctrine of
Election, once the petitioners have chosen a civil remedy before the civil
court, they cannot fall back and resort to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Therefore, on this count also, the writ petitions are not maintainable.
15. In the light of the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are held to
be not maintainable and are, therefore, dismissed along-with pending
contempt petitions.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
04.03.2026
Altaf
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
WP (C) No. 2545/2024 c/w 2547/2024 CCP (D) Nos. 51/2025 & 52/2025 Page 5 of 5