Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Madhusudan Nathani vs Dbs Bank India Ltd. on 27 July, 2026
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2026:RJ-JP:34963]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3279/2022
CNR: RJHC010129452022 | URN: CW / 6905U / 2022
1. Madhusudan Nathani S/o Late Shri R.s. Nathani, Aged
About 43 Years, C-444, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.),
Proprietor Of M/s Manish Tex Trade.
2. Asha Nathani W/o Late Shri R.s. Nathani, Aged About 69
Years, C-444, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dbs Bank India Ltd., Through Its Authorized Officer, 54,
Bhandari Plaza, Rajendra Marg, Opp. Nagar Parishad,
Bhilwara 311001
2. Dbs Bank India Limited, Through Its Regional Heal,
29/35, Ist Floor, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110025
3. Reserve Bank Of India, Represented Through Its Chief
General Manager-In-Charge, 6 Sansad Marg, Sansad
Marg Area, New Delhi 110001
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
27/07/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2022
challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act‘).
2. When the matter was called, none marked appearance on
behalf of the petitioner, despite the categorical note being
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 11:00:20 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 05:57:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34963] (2 of 5) [CW-3279/2022]
incorporated in the cause list that no further adjournment will be
granted in the securitisation matters.
3. This Court is conscious of the fact that the controversy
involved herein is no more res integra and the same is covered by
the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United
Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 and
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022
INSC 44, wherein qua the maintainability of such writ petitions it
has categorically held that High Courts ought to be extremely
careful and circumspect in exercising their discretion under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in such financial matters
pertaining to financial debt/bank recovery/SARFAESI wherein
disputed questions of facts are involved. The relevant extract of
Satyawati Tondon (supra) is reproduced as under:-
“46. It must be remembered that stay of an action
initiated by the State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess,
fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of
public importance and disables them from discharging
their constitutional and legal obligations towards the
citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of
banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay
granted by the High Court would have serious adverse
impact on the financial health of such
bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove
detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore,
the High Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in
such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to
show that its case falls within any of the exceptions
carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra
Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad [AIR 1969
SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 11:00:20 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 05:57:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34963] (3 of 5) [CW-3279/2022]Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and
some other judgments, then the High Court may, after
considering all the relevant parameters and public
interest, pass an appropriate interim order.”
(emphasis supplied)
The relevant extract of Phoenix ARC (supra) is reproduced as
under :-
“13.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case
of Mathew K.C. (supra) to the facts on hand, we are of
the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the
borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court.
The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed
action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed
hereinabove, even assuming that the communication
dated 13.08.2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in
that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious
remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders
passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status
quo with respect to the possession of the secured
properties on payment of Rs.1 crore only (in all Rs.3
crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the
extent of approximately Rs.117 crores. The ad-interim
relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured
creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action
under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the
borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse
of process of Court. It appears that the High Court has
initially granted an ex-parte ad-interim order
mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The
High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing
such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor
to recover the amount due and payable have been
seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its
assignor have a right to recover the amount due and(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 11:00:20 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 05:57:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34963] (4 of 5) [CW-3279/2022]payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the
High Court would have serious adverse impact on the
financial health of the secured creditor/assignor.
Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely
careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while
granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances,
the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be
dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. It is the settled proposition of law that entertaining such writ
petitions will frustrate the scheme and the legislative
intent/wisdom behind the creation of special legislation and that
the writ petitions cannot be filed directly bypassing the alternate
remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum available under
the provisions of the relevant statute.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the
matter in hand, taking note of the settled position of law, relying
upon the judgments as referred above, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose the present petition as none marked
appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite the categorical note
being incorporated in the cause list that no further adjournment
will be granted in the securitisation matters.
6. It is made clear that interim order, if any, is in currency in
favor of the petitioner, the same shall continue for the period of
said 30 days and no coercive action shall be taken against the
petitioner during and till the said period.
7. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail alternate
and efficacious remedy within a period of 30 days from the date of
passing of this order and if availed, the same can be considered by
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 11:00:20 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 05:57:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34963] (5 of 5) [CW-3279/2022]
appropriate authority/tribunal/forum, strictly in accordance with
law.
8. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition
stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
369/chandan
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 11:00:20 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 05:57:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
