Samda Kanwar @ Samandar Kanwar vs Bank Of Baroda on 27 July, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Samda Kanwar @ Samandar Kanwar vs Bank Of Baroda on 27 July, 2026

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2026:RJ-JP:34989]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15291/2022
       CNR: RJHC010706222022 | URN: CW / 30607U / 2022

Samda Kanwar @ Samandar Kanwar W/o Shri Abhay Singh
Ranawat, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 16, Near Charbhuja
Mandir, Kemooniya, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch
         Raipur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
2.       The Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Branch Raipur,
         District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Avinash Acharya



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

27/07/2026

SPONSORED

1. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2022

challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and

Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act‘).

2. 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

(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 12:06:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 08:46:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34989] (2 of 4) [CW-15291/2022]

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 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).

(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 12:06:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 08:46:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34989] (3 of 4) [CW-15291/2022]

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 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)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to rebut or

distinguish the applicability of the said judgments.

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

(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 12:06:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 08:46:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34989] (4 of 4) [CW-15291/2022]

remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum available under

the provisions of the relevant statute.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,

and taking note of the settled position of law as well as the

judgments referred above, this Court deems it appropriate to

dispose the present petition, with liberty to the petitioner to avail

alternate and efficacious remedy before the appropriate forum

within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order,

and the same shall be considered and adjudicated, strictly in

accordance with law.

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. In light of the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present

petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall

stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

376/chandan

(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 12:06:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 08:46:59 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)