Case Note & Summary
The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, heard a batch of civil writ petitions filed by secured creditors, including Jana Small Finance Bank Limited and Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, against the State of Rajasthan and various police authorities and private borrowers. The petitions arose from alleged forcible re-entry by borrowers into secured assets after the secured creditors had lawfully taken physical possession pursuant to orders passed by District Magistrates under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The lead petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10026/2026, was considered for common adjudication with the consent of parties.
The factual background showed that the petitioner banks were financial institutions registered under the SARFAESI Act. Private respondents had availed financial assistance by mortgaging secured assets but defaulted on repayment. The petitioners invoked Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, and after recall of loans and non-payment, proceedings under Section 13(4) were initiated. The petitioners then filed applications under Section 14 before the District Magistrate, Deeg, for assistance in taking possession. The District Magistrate allowed the application on 16.09.2025, directing police assistance for physical possession. Possession was taken and handed over to the petitioners. However, according to the petitioners, the borrowers dishonest and malafidely re-entered the premises without authorization, overreaching the process of law. The petitioners therefore sought directions from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer to restore possession and take necessary legal action.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable in such circumstances, or whether the petitioners should pursue an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The state authorities argued that an alternative efficacious remedy existed under the Act itself, and that the petitioners could approach the concerned Magistrate for further directions. The petitioners contended that the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 14 is administrative, not adjudicatory, and that repeated orders under Section 14 are neither permissible nor desirable, imposing a duty on police to protect possession once granted.
The court reproduced the relevant provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and considered the nature of the statutory scheme. The extracted portion of the judgment does not include the final operative order, but the court was clearly engaged in determining the maintainability of writ petitions in the face of alleged police inaction and borrowers' violation of Section 14 orders. The court examined the interplay between the administrative character of Section 14 proceedings and the constitutional remedy under Article 226 when statutory remedies are inadequate due to forcible re-entry and police failure to assist.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition for Restoration of Possession - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Sections 14(1) and (2) - The core question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when a borrower forcibly re-enters the secured asset after possession was taken under Section 14 order. The petitioner argued that police authorities are duty bound to protect lawful possession, while the state contended that alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act exists. The court examined the scope of Section 14 and the obligation of police authorities to prevent overreaching of the process of law. (Paras 6-12)
B) Securitisation - Section 14 Assistance - Administrative Nature of Magistrate's Jurisdiction - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 14 - The petitioner submitted that the jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative, not adjudicatory, and that repeated applications under Section 14 are neither permissible nor desirable, so police authorities must protect possession once granted. The court considered the statutory text of Section 14 and the consequences of forcible re-entry by borrowers after lawful possession was handed over to the secured creditor. (Paras 7-9, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when a borrower forcibly re-enters a secured asset after possession was validly taken under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, or whether an alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Act of 2002.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in extracted text
Law Points
- Section 14 of SARFAESI Act empowers District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession
- jurisdiction under Section 14 is administrative and not adjudicatory
- repeated orders under Section 14 are neither permissible nor desirable
- police authorities are duty bound to protect possession once order passed
- writ petition under Article 226 may be maintainable when borrower forcibly re-enters secured asset in violation of Section 14 order
- alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act may not bar writ jurisdiction in such circumstances
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (06) 22
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10026/2026 and connected matters (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10027/2026, 10030/2026, 10355/2026, 10356/2026, 10357/2026, 10358/2026, 10368/2026, 10375/2026)
For petitioners: Mr. Akhilesh Pareek, Adv. and Mr. Punit Mathur, Adv.; For respondents: Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC, Ms. Devakriti Vashistha, AAAG & Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG
Jana Small Finance Bank Limited (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10026/2026, 10030/2026, 10355/2026, 10356/2026, 10357/2026, 10358/2026, 10368/2026, 10375/2026) and Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10027/2026)
State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of Home; Superintendent of Police, Deeg; Station Housing Officer, P.S. Brijnagar, Deeg; Superintendent of Police, Alwar; Station Housing Officer, P.S. Sikri, Deeg; Station Housing Officer, P.S. Nogava, Alwar; and other police authorities and private borrower respondents named in connected petitions.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police assistance for restoration of possession of secured assets after borrowers allegedly forcibly re-entered premises despite valid possession taken under Section 14 SARFAESI Act order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought direction against the Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer to restore possession of the secured asset to the petitioners and to take other necessary action under the law against borrowers who unauthorizedly re-entered.
Filing Reason
Borrowers defaulted on loans; petitioners invoked SARFAESI Act, obtained Section 14 order from District Magistrate, took physical possession with police assistance, but borrowers allegedly forcibly re-entered the secured assets, violating the order and overreaching the process of law.
Previous Decisions
District Magistrate, Deeg vide order dated 16.09.2025 allowed the application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and directed police assistance for taking physical possession of the secured asset.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when a borrower forcibly re-enters a secured asset after possession was taken under Section 14 SARFAESI Act order, or whether an alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Act of 2002.
Whether the jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative and not adjudicatory, and whether repeated orders under Section 14 are permissible or desirable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that borrowers forcefully entered the secured asset despite lawful possession handed over under Section 14 order, infringing valuable rights, and police authorities are under legal obligation to protect such rights.
Respondent's counsel argued that petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under the Act of 2002 itself, so writ petition is not maintainable; petitioner can seek appropriate directions from the concerned Magistrate who passed the initial order under Section 14.
Petitioner in rejoinder submitted that jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative, not adjudicatory, and repeated orders under Section 14 are neither permissible nor desirable; police authorities are duty bound to protect possession once granted.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
Jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 14 is administrative in nature and not adjudicatory hence repeated orders under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 are neither permissible, nor desirable under the circumstances and once the order was passed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 14, the respondents Police Authorities are duty bound to protect the possession of the petitioner over the secured asset.
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 o
Procedural History
Petitioners, financial institutions registered under SARFAESI Act, advanced loans to private respondents against mortgaged secured assets. Upon default, petitioners invoked Section 13 and later Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. Petitioners filed applications under Section 14 before District Magistrate, Deeg, who by order dated 16.09.2025 directed police assistance for taking physical possession. Possession was taken and handed over to petitioners. Alleging that borrowers forcibly re-entered the secured assets, petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 seeking directions for restoration of possession and police action. The High Court heard the batch of petitions together and reserved judgment on maintainability and merits.
Acts & Sections
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 13, Section 13(4), Section 14, Section 14(1), Section 14(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
