Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ummeed Housing Finance Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Police on 20 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:27728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11383/2026
URN: CW / 25249U / 2026
Ummeed Housing Finance Private Limited, Reg. Office At Office
No. 2009-2014, 20Th Floor, Magnum Global Park, Sector 58,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122011 Through The Authorized Officer Mr.
Jai Sharma, Branch Office At 3rd Floor, Axis Mall, Bhagwan Das
Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station-Jaisinghpura Khor,
District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. District Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Mrs. Radha Devi W/o Shri Satish Singh, Residing At A-24,
Bajrang Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302027
6. Mr. Satish Singh S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh, Residing At A-
24,bajrang Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302027
7. Mr. Alok Singh Thakur S/o Shri Satish Singh Thakur,
Residing At 24-A, Bajrang Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302027
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Khandelwal for
Mr. Saransh Ghiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
20/07/2026
1. Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. appeared and accepted
notices on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27728] (2 of 7) [CW-11383/2026]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
private-respondents availed loan facility from the petitioner
financial institution however when he failed to repay the same
proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 (for short the ‘Act of 2002’) were
initiated and after carrying out proceedings under Section 14(2) of
the Act of 2002, an application under Section 14 of the Act of
2002 was moved before the concerned District Magistrate, Jaipur.
Learned counsel submits that the application under Section 14 of
the Act of 2002 filed by the petitioner was allowed by the District
Magistrate granting directions to the police authorities to provide
police assistance and the rectified on 04.07.2023. Learned counsel
submits that by aid of police, physical possession of the secured
assets was taken by the petitioner on 24.12.2025. After taking
possession, in view of Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the petitioner
had legitimate right to continue the possession, yet in quite
malicious and unauthorized manner, the private respondents re-
entered in the secured premises. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
again approached the concerned District Collector by way of filing
an application with a prayer to direct for restoration of possession.
However, an application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed
vide order dated 13.04.2026 by the concerned District Magistrate
with the findings that after passing the initial final order dated
04.07.2023, the District Magistrate become functus officio.
3. This Court finds that the similar controversy arose
before this Court where after passing the order under Section 14
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27728] (3 of 7) [CW-11383/2026]
and after taking possession thereunder by the secured creditor,
the borrower re-entered in the secured premises, this Court held
that the concerned Magistrate does not become functus officio and
cannot be rendered powerless to issue appropriate directions
under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002. In the case of Jana Small
Finance Bank Limited Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B.
CWP No. 10026/2026, this Court has held as under:
“11. Core questions involved in these matters
is that once the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate issues directions under Section 14 of the
Act of 2002 directing for taking physical possession
of the secured asset with the police assistance and
pursuant thereto, possession is also handed over to
the secured creditor, a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India would be maintainable or
not, in the event the borrower forcibly re-enters the
secured asset in violation of such order, or whether
an alternative remedy is available under the
provisions of the Act of 2002.
12. Since, the controversy revolves around the
provisions of Section 14(1) and (2), relevant portion
thereof is being reproduced hereunder:-
“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District
Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking
possession of secured asset.–(1) Where the
possession of any secured assets is required to be
taken by the secured creditor or if any of the
secured assets is required to be sold or transferred
by the secured creditor under the provisions of this
Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of
taking possession or control of any such secured
assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose
jurisdiction any such secured asset or other
documents relating thereto may be situated or
found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the
District Magistrate shall, on such request being
made to him–
(a) take possession of such asset and documents
relating thereto; and
(b) forward such asset and documents to the
secured creditor:
1
[Provided that any application by the secured
creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27728] (4 of 7) [CW-11383/2026]affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured
creditor, declaring that–
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance
granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the
date of filing the application;
(ii) the borrower has created security interest over
various properties and that the Bank or Financial
Institution is holding a valid and subsisting
security interest over such properties and the
claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is
within the limitation period;
(iii) the borrower has created security interest over
various properties giving the details of properties
referred to in sub-clause (ii) above;
(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment
of the financial assistance granted aggregating
the specified amount;
(v) consequent upon such default in repayment of
the financial assistance the account of the
borrower has been classified as a non-
performing asset;
(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as
required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted
financial assistance has been served on the
borrower;
(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the
notice received from the borrower has been
considered by the secured creditor and reasons
for non-acceptance of such objection or
representation had been communicated to the
borrower;
(viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the
financial assistance in spite of the above notice
and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled
to take possession of the secured assets under
the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13
read with section 14 of the principal Act;
(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder had been complied with:
Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit
from the Authorised Officer, the District
Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
as the case may be, shall after satisfying the
contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for
the purpose of taking possession of the secured
assets1 [within a period of thirty days from the
date of application]:
1
[Provided 2[also] that if no order is passed by
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District
Magistrate within the said period of thirty days
for reasons beyond his control, he may, after
recording reasons in writing for the same, pass
the order within such further period but not
exceeding in aggregate sixty days.]Provided also that the requirement of filing
affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not
apply to proceeding pending before any District
Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27728] (5 of 7) [CW-11383/2026]as the case may be, on the date of
commencement of this Act.]3
[(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any
officer subordinate to him,–
(i) to take possession of such assets and
documents relating thereto; and
(ii) to forward such assets and documents to
the secured creditor.]
(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with
the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or the District
Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such
steps and use, or cause to be used, such force,
as may, in his opinion, be necessary.”
13. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would
make it clear that under Section 14(1) necessary orders can
be passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District
Magistrate, as the case may be for the purpose of taking
possession of the secured asset. Section 14(2) of the Act
further provides that for the purpose of securing compliance
with the provisions of sub-section (1) the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or District Magistrate may direct for taking
necessary steps or cause to be used force which in his opinion
is necessary.
14.The expression “for the purpose of securing
compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1)” is
apparently having wide amplitude and cannot be interpreted in
a narrow manner. Once possession is handed over under the
orders of concerned Magistrate under Section 14, it would
essentially mean the right of secured creditor to continue such
possession which is an integral part of proceedings under
Section 14. Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002 would also make
it clear that such provision confers enabling power upon the
concerned Magistrate for ensuring compliance of any order
passed by the Magistrate under Section 14. If possession
delivered under the Magistrate’s authority is subsequently
disturbed by force or trespass, the Magistrate’s power under
Section 14(2) can reasonably be construed as extending to
restoration of status quo ante, so that the original order is not
frustrated.
15. This Court finds that after passing order under
Section 14 for taking over possession of the secured asset and
handing over the same to the secured creditor, concerned
Magistrate does not become functus officio and the
apprehension of the petitioner that after passing initial order
under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, concerned Magistrate is
rendered powerless, is totally misconceived and is
misinterpretation of clear language of Section 14(2) of the Act
of 2002. In view of the language of the aforesaid provision, it
is clear that the concerned Magistrate is having power not only
to take possession through police assistance of the secured
asset, but power is also vested with him for passing
subsequent orders for ensuring the compliance of earlier order
passed by the Magistrate. Any other interpretation of the
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27728] (6 of 7) [CW-11383/2026]
aforesaid provision is likely to frustrate the proceedings under
Section 14 and to render the powers conferred to the
concerned Magistrate as meaningless and ineffective.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that ensuring compliance of the order earlier passed
under Section 14 is also integral and indispensable part of
powers conferred to the Magistrate under Section 14(2) of the
Act of 2002, in case, the borrower or any other person violates
the directions given by the concerned Magistrate under Section
14 and unauthorizedly re-enters in the premises of secured
asset then the aggrieved secured creditor is well within its right
to approach the concerned Magistrate by way of filing an
application under Section 14(2) of the Act of 2002 with a
prayer to secure compliance of earlier order passed by the
Magistrate. Such application shall be examined in accordance
with law by the concerned Magistrate and appropriate orders
for securing compliance of the earlier order can be passed.
Thus this Court, on the basis of foregoing discussion, comes to
the conclusion that the petitioners are having efficacious
remedy under the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act of
2002 before the concerned Magistrate.
17. In the instant cases, admittedly the petitioners
have not approached the concerned Magistrate by way of filing
any such application under Section 14 (2) of the Act of 2002.
This Court finds that under such circumstances, the present
writ petitions filed by the petitioners are totally premature and
not maintainable. In view foregoing discussions, the writ
petitions filed by the petitioner can not be entertained and are
hereby dismissed.
18.However, mere dismissal of the present writ petitions shall
not curtail rights of the petitioner financial institution to
approach the concerned Magistrate by way of filing an
application under Section 14(2) for securing compliance of
earlier order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14. Any
such proceedings shall be treated in continuation to the earlier
proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. The
concerned Magistrate, upon filing of such application, shall
examine the contents of the application and shall pass
appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, for securing
compliance of its earlier order passed by the concerned
Magistrate for the purpose of taking possession of the secured
asset and to hand over such possession to the secured
creditor. In the event, any such application is filed, same shall
be decided expeditiously by the concerned Magistrate.”.
4. In view of above judgment, this Court finds that since
the controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by
the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in the case of Jana Small
Finance Bank Limited (supra), therefore, the order dated
13.04.2026 passed by District Magistrate/Collector, Jaipur is
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27728] (7 of 7) [CW-11383/2026]
hereby quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to
the District Magistrate Collector for reconsidering the application
for restoration of possession filed by the petitioner in the light of
above judgment in the case of Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.
(supra) on receiving certified copy of this order, the concerned
Magistrate shall make an endeavour to decide the application
expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s),
disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
43/NEERU
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 09:44:57 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 01:40:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
