Civil Court Jurisdiction Upheld in SARFAESI Partition Dispute

Case Details: Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar @ Aishwarya Sanjay Mali - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 534 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• N.J. Jamadar, J.
• Naushad Engineer, Sr. Adv., Vinod Kothari, Kshitij Parekh & Siddharth Samantaray, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Sagar Kasar, Hamid Mulla, AGPs, Ms Chaitali Bhogle, Amol Wagh, Hrishabh Tiwari, V.V. Krishnan, Ms Renuka Anturkar, Ms Siddhi Bhosale, Ms Prajakta Shringapure, Surel Shah & R.V. Pai, Sr. Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a secured creditor, had extended financial facilities to Aishwarya Regency LLP, whose partners and guarantors were Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and a security interest was created in the suit property.

Upon default, measures under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, were initiated.

The plaintiff, being the daughter of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, filed a suit for partition and separate possession, along with an application for injunction to restrain the enforcement sale. The Trial Court rejected the injunction application.

On appeal, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and restrained the creation of third-party interest in the suit property to the extent of the plaintiff’s share, without due process of law. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

It was noted that where the right of the plaintiff in the suit property as a coparcener was prima facie evident, a suit for partition, separate possession of her share, and consequential relief of injunction squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Further, it was observed that the balance of convenience, in a situation where the apparent undivided interest of the plaintiff in the suit property was sought to be alienated pursuant to measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to which she was not a party, tilted in her favour.

High Court Held

The High Court further observed that the element of irreparable loss, in the event the suit property was alienated for enforcement of the security interest, was also in favour of the plaintiff.

It was also noted that the action initiated against the borrowers, to which the plaintiff was not a party, could not be regarded as creation of third-party interest by following due process of law.

The Court emphasised that, to give meaning and content to the impugned order, due process of law must be qua the plaintiff, and any transfer effected in breach of the injunction order would be illegal, if not void.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal [2014] 41 taxmann.com 408/124 SCL 291 (SC)/(2014) 1 SCC 479
• Satyajit Balasaheb Kadam v. Balasaheb A Kadam [Civil Application No. 3283 of 2017, dated 1-11-2017] (para 33) distinguished
• Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra (2004) 3 Mah.L.J. 893 (para 56) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal [2014] 41 taxmann.com 408/124 SCL 291 (SC) (para 11)
• Satyajit Balasaheb Kadam v. Balasaheb A Kadam [Civil Application No. 3283 of 2017, dated 1-11-2017] (para 11)
• Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (2023) 17 SCC 545 (para 19)
• Bank of Baroda v. Gopal Shriram Panda [2021] 125 taxmann.com 382 (Bombay) (para 29)
• Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025) 4 SCC 38 (para 29)
• Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 51 SCL 513 (SC) (para 30)
• Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra (2004) 3 Mah.L.J. 893 (para 56)
• Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 1673 (para 57)
• Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku AIR 1994 SC 1837 (para 57)
• Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384 (para 59).