JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON HARI CHOUDHARY V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, June 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 11:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure-6) issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi invoking jurisdiction under Section 14 (1) and (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), whereby the officer concerned has nominated the police personnel to take possession of the flat, which was mortgaged with Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited.

3. On the last date i.e. on 28.04.2026, as the petitioner intended to deposit the substantial amount i.e. Rs.15 lakhs, time was granted to the petitioner to deposit the same till 11th May 2026. Order dated 28.04.2026 is quoted hereinbelow:

"2/28.04.2026 Let this case be listed on 11th May 2026 as it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is agreeable to pay Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) till 11th May 2026.

2) The petitioner will also file an affidavit stating that how he will liquidate the entire dues.

3) Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Memo No.139 dated 23.03.2026 issued by Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. Today when the matter has been listed, it has submitted by both the parties that the petitioner has not deposited the amount.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit any amount as his financial condition is not good. 6. In the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner i.e. appropriate authority has only exercised this power conferred by the statute. In terms of Section 14 (1) of the Act, 2002, the power has been vested with the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the mortgaged assets. The Deputy Commissioner has only exercised the aforesaid power, therefore, there is no illegality in the same as admittedly the property in question which possession is sought to be taken is a mortgaged property and the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter. Thus, I find no ground to set aside the impugned order.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

7. Interim order dated 28.04.2026 stands vacated.

8. Consequently, pending, I.A.s also stand disposed of.

9. It will be open to the respondent-Deputy Commission to extend the date for taking possession of the property in question.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.