Secured Creditor Can Seek Physical Possession Of Immovable Property U/S 14 Of SARFAESI Act Even After Sale: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has held that a secured creditor can seek physical possession of an immovable property under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act even after the sale of that property to a purchaser.

The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Single Judge in a Writ Petition by which the SBI was refused physical possession of an immovable property.

The Appellant submitted that the Appellant purchased an immovable property under the SARFAESI Act but the bank failed to deliver actual physical possession. The Bank filed an application under section 14 of the Act which was dismissed by the District Magistrate. Subsequently, the Bank filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order passed by the DM but the Single Judge refused to set aside the order.

Relying on ITC Ltd. Vs. Blue Coast, it was argued that a secured creditor can seek possession under section 14 of the Act even after the sale to a purchaser. Therefore, both the DM and the Single Judge erred in denying relief under section 14 of the Act.

Per contra, the Respondents submitted that there is an order of injunction passed by commercial Court with regard to the concerned immovable property restraining the private respondents from creating third party rights in respect of such immovable property.

It was further argued that appellant is a purchaser of an immovable property and cannot move Court for the purpose of obtaining an order under Section 14 of the Act.

The court observed that the Appellant's right, interest and title are directly affected by the impugned passed by which the Single Judge refused to provide assistance to the Bank to take physical possession of the property under section 14 of the Act. Such refusal affects the purchaser's rights which make the present appeal maintainable.

It held that “District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is not an adjudicatory authority. Private respondents are not remediless in respect of a measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. We are informed that there is a proceeding under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 pending.”

The court, while relying on the ITC Ltd Vs Blue Coast, set aside the order of the DM and directed him to decide the application afresh within two weeks. It was also directed that the SBI is given physical possession of the property within four weeks.

Accordingly, the present appeal was allowed.

Case Title: VIJAY PRAKASH BOHRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Case Number: IA NO: CAN/1/2025

Judgment Date: 09/09/2025

For the Appellant: Mr. Rishad Medosa, Advocate Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Advocate Ms. Deepti Priya, Advocate Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate

For the SBI: Mr. Debahis Saha, Advocate

For the respondent No. 5-7: Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Advocate

For the respondent No. 6 & 9Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Advocate Ms. Arushi Rathore, Advocate Mr. Pritam Roy, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order