WPA/5182/2026 of MIR MOSARAF HOSEN AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

11.03.2026 Ct. No. 7 Sl. No. 28 RANJAN WPA 5182 of 2026 MIR MOSARAF HOSEN AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta Mr. Biswapriya Samanta Mr. Subrata Palit Mr. Akash Kumar Chakraborty ….for the Petitioners Mr. Amit Sharma Mr. Abhishek Kr. Agrahari ….for the Union of India The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the initiation of both civil and criminal proceedings vis-a-vis a loan which had been granted to the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the admitted de faults in repayment of the loan, t he respondent bank has initiated bot h civil and criminal proceeding which is impermissible. The brief facts culminating in the filing of this writ petition are as that the petitioners ha d been granted a loan of Rs. 15,0 0,000/- by the respondent bank. It is admitted position that the entire amount of Rs. 15,00,000/ - has been duly received by the petitioner in installments. 2 Prior thereto, the parties had also entered into agreement. In the view of the admitted defaults by the petitioner, the respondent bank had been compelled to issue a notice under s ection 13(2) of The Securitisation and Recon struction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 . Subsequently, the respondent bank has also initiated proceeding under s ection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this background , it is contende d on behalf of the petitioner that initiation of parallel proceedings both civil and criminal proceeding are barred by law and the respondent bank has to choose only one proceeding for recovery of their dues. The Union of India is represented and submits that the instant writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable. In such circumstances, the entire aim of the petitioner is to unnecessarily procrastinate recovery of the ir dues. Both the proceedings i.e. under Section 13(2) of SA RFAESI and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are different, distinct and separable remedies available to the respondent bank. 3 There i s no merit in the writ petition. There is also no equity in favour of the petitioner since the pe titioner as an admitted defaulter who has failed to repay public funds. WPA 5182 of 2026 stands dismissed. (RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)