COURT NO.1

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Record of Proceedings

Page 1 of 3

WA No. 03/2025

MEENA JHA

APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT (S)

For Appellant : Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha and

Ms. Pema Dechen Bhutia, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. J. K. Chandak, Advocate.

No. 1 and 2.

For Respondents : None.

No. 3 to 5

For Respondents : Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate

No. 6 and 7 with Ms. Pema Bhutia, Assistant Government

Advocate.

Date: 06/11/2025

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

This is an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, arising in respect of a judgment

and order passed by a learned Single Judge on 14

th

August, 2025, in WP(C)

No.13 of 2020 (Meena Jha vs. State Bank of India and Others).

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded

to dismiss the writ petition with the following observations:-

“23. Unlike the facts in IDBI Bank Limited vs. Ramswaroop Daliya

[(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2878] referred to by the petitioner the facts

of the present case is different. It is not a case where the petitioner

having paid the 25% of the sale price in terms of Rule 9(3) of the SI

Rules the respondents had not accepted the balance auction money.

This is a case where there is complete and absolute failure on the

part of the petitioner to pay any amount of the sale price whatsoever

although having been declared the successful bidder on 13.10.2011.

24. The conflicting pleas made in the writ petition coupled with the

petitioner’s conduct during the period between the auction and now

questions her bonafides. The petitioner has made conflicting pleas

COURT NO.1

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Record of Proceedings

Page 2 of 3

regarding payments made by her without substantiating the same by

documentary evidence. These pleas have been disputed by the

respondent no.1. There are serious disputed questions of facts which

arise due to the inconsistent pleadings of the parties which is difficult

to be gone into in writ jurisdiction. Although admittedly the petitioner

has not made payment of the deposit of 25% of the sale price or the

balance of the sale price it is noticed that in the writ petition filed

before the Guwahati High Court the petitioner has stated that “..... on

12.12.2011, the petitioner made the entire payment of the remaining

sale amount in respect of purchase of the aforesaid property and

pursuant thereto, the respondent no.2 issued a sale certificate dated

03.01.2012 wherein, it was certified that the property has been sold

out to the petitioner vide auction held on 13.10.2011 and the

petitioner was held to be the owner of the property w.e.f.

13.10.2011.” The above statements are factually false and incorrect.

When the petitioner indulges on falsehood for her cause the writ

court would also hesitate to exercise its discretionary powers in

favour of the petitioner.

25. Furthermore, the petitioner would fall within the expression

“any person” as specified under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act

and hence was entitled to challenge the action of the respondent no.1

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an appropriate

application. The petitioner has not availed this alternative efficacious

remedy. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground as

well.

26. The writ petition is therefore dismissed along with the interim

application.”

The moot question which was formulated by the learned Single Judge which

led to the conclusion as reproduced hereinabove, will appear from paragraph 1 of

the impugned judgment and order, which reads as follows;

“1. The question that falls for determination is whether the writ

petition filed in the year 2020 by the auction purchaser who had

participated in an auction sale of the immovable property of the

secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the

SARFAESI Act) in the year 2011 but failed to pay the deposit of 25%

of the sale price as required under Rule 9(3) or pay the balance

within the time frame under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (the SI Rules), should be allowed?”

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order in its entirety clearly

reveals no palpable infirmities or perversities which would warrant an

interference by this Court in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. In fact, the

impugned judgment and order has been delivered with cogent and justifiable

reasons.

COURT NO.1

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Record of Proceedings

Page 3 of 3

In such circumstances, we are left with no option but to dismiss the appeal.

The same stands accordingly dismissed along with the interlocutory application

connected thereto.

(Meenakshi Madan Rai) (Biswanath Somadder)

Judge Chief Justice

jk/ds/avi/ami