HC Dismisses Plea Against Auction of Mortgaged Asset
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 4 February, 2026

Case Details: Nazir Ahmad Bhat vs. Chairman/ Managing Director J&K Bank Corporate Office - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 310 (HC-Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjeev Kumar & Sanjay Parihar, JJ.
-
Tariq M. Shah & Zahid Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellant.
-
Ms Insha Rashid & Ms Taniya, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner-borrower availed a cash credit facility from the respondent-bank, secured by a mortgage of an immovable property. Due to default, the account was classified as NPA. The possession notice was issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
The Bank issued an e-auction notice under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for the of a sale secured asset, and later issued an addendum extending the bid submission deadline and rescheduling the auction date. The Successful bidder deposited consideration, and a sale certificate was issued.
The petitioner then challenged the possession notice, the e-auction notice, the addendum and the sale certificate, alleging deprivation of the statutory 30-day period under Rule 9(1) to clear dues.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of a 30-day opportunity, as he had more than three months from the initial auction notice to date of the auction to redeem the secured asset; thus, the contention was untenable. Further, since the petitioner failed to clear outstanding dues despite sufficient opportunity, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils and Protiens India (P.) Ltd. [2025] 178 taxmann.com 574 (SC)/2025 LiveLaw (SC) 931 (para 12) followed
- Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar [2014] 44 taxmann.com 137/125 SCL 209 (SC)/[2014 (5) SCC 610] (para 15) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar [2014] 44 taxmann.com 137/125 SCL 209 (SC) (para 11)
- M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils and Protiens India (P.) Ltd. [2025] 178 taxmann.com 574 (SC) (para 12).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA