This compilation indexes twelve judgments — spanning January 2025 to June 2026 — in which High Courts across India and the Supreme Court of India considered proceedings arising under or connected to Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The cases involve borrowers, guarantors, auction purchasers, and secured creditors litigating questions of possession notices, auction proceedings, procedural compliance, and the interplay between SARFAESI enforcement and civil court jurisdiction. The compilation is intended for legal researchers, in-house banking and finance teams, and law firm associates tracking the current judicial treatment of Section 13(4) proceedings across Indian courts.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, and readers should verify each ruling against the full reported judgment before acting on or citing it.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 empowers a secured creditor, where a borrower fails to discharge its liability in full within the period specified in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2), to take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover the secured debt: (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower or such part as is necessary; (c) appoint any person to manage the secured assets; or (d) require any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due to the borrower, to pay such money to the secured creditor. The section operates within a broader procedural scheme that includes the mandatory demand notice under Section 13(2), the borrower's right to raise objections, and the secured creditor's obligation to consider and communicate its response to such objections before proceeding to exercise the powers under Section 13(4).

The 12 rulings

1. M.S. Sumaraj vs The Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 13(4), 14(1), 14(3), 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (WA No. 1180 of 2026) was filed before the Kerala High Court against a judgment dated 06.04.2026 in WP(C) No. 38805 of 2025. Per the source preview, the appellants are M.S. Sumaraj and Ajith Kumar M.K., and the respondents include the Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited and its authorised officer; the appeal arises in the context of SARFAESI proceedings in which Sections 13(4), 14(1), 14(3), and 17 are engaged.

2. Union Bank Of India vs Swadha Builders Private Limited And

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 10 December 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4), 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (APO 112 of 2023 and APO 109 of 2023) was decided by the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Division on 10 December 2025, with hearing concluded on 4 November 2025. Per the source preview, the respondents (Nos. 1 to 5) had in the underlying suit CS 390 of 2014 sought a declaration that the deed of equitable mortgage and deed of guarantee executed in favour of Union Bank of India be adjudged null and void and delivered up and cancelled; the appeal by Union Bank of India assailed the judgment and order dated 22 March 2023 in the interlocutory applications arising from that suit.

3. M/S. Jagannath Cashew vs Registrar

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 15 October 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4), 14
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 24539 of 2019) was filed before the Orissa High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata in Appeal No. 42 of 2019. Per the source preview, the DRAT had allowed the appeal filed by the State Bank of India (since merged with Union Bank of India) and reversed the order dated 02.04.2019 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack; the writ petition was heard on 06.08.2025 and the order was passed on 15.10.2025.

4. M. Rajendran vs M/S Kpk Oils And Proteins India Pvt. Ltd

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 22 September 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4), 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (Civil Appeal No. 12174 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11068 of 2023, along with Civil Appeal No. 12175 of 2025) was a reportable judgment (2025 INSC 1137) of the Supreme Court of India. Per the source preview, the appellants are referred to as the Auction Purchasers, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as the Original Borrowers, and respondent No. 5 as the Bank; the borrowers had availed cash credit facilities of Rs. 5 crore and a term loan of Rs. 30 lakh from the Bank on 06.01.2016, with respondents Nos. 2 and 3 standing as guarantors by creating equitable mortgage over immovable properties including the "Subject Property" vide Document No. 68 of 2016 dated 06.01.2016 with the Sub Registrar Office, Dharapuram. The judgment includes an analysis of the legislative history and scheme of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Indian Overseas Bank vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 4 August 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This special civil application (R/SCA No. 12196 of 2024, neutral citation C/SCA/12196/2024) was filed by Indian Overseas Bank before the Gujarat High Court and decided on 4 August 2025 as an oral judgment. Per the source preview, the writ petition was filed praying for, among other reliefs, a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of mandamus granting a mandatory injunction against the State of Gujarat and other respondents; the petition engages Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

6. M/S Everspace Realty Llp vs M/S Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt.Ltd

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 30 July 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (WA No. 2005 of 2024 and WA No. 2124 of 2024, neutral citation 2025:KER:56663) came before the Kerala High Court as writ appeals arising from a judgment dated 19.11.2024 in WP(C) No. 23464 of 2024. Per the source preview, the appellant M/S Everspace Realty LLP was the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, with respondents in the writ appeal including M/S Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and its director; the State Bank of India's Stressed Assets Management Branch was also a party, and the appeal was heard on 18 July 2025 (per the partial text visible in the source preview).

7. M/S Adidev Polymers Private Ltd vs State Bank Of Patiala

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 27 May 2025
Sections engaged: 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP No. 38736 of 2013, neutral citation 2025:KHC:18403) was filed by M/S Adidev Polymers Private Ltd before the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought a direction to State Bank of Patiala and its officials to facilitate registration of a sale certificate in favour of the petitioner; the respondents also include the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department, Queens Road, Bangalore-01, and the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar.

8. M/S K.C. International Situate And 2 vs Indian Bank Kanpur Main Branch

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 15 April 2025
Sections engaged: 13(3), 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WRIT-C No. 263 of 2025, neutral citation 2025:AHC:54895-DB) was filed before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the main contention of the petitioners was that a representation/objection dated October 5, 2024 made by the petitioners under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act was not decided by the bank before the bank proceeded to take action under Sections 13(4) and 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act; this raises the procedural question of whether a secured creditor must dispose of the borrower's objection prior to invoking Section 13(4).

9. Sunita Nishad And Anr vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 1 April 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WRIT-C No. 35050 of 2019, neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:17786) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, with judgment reserved on 05.11.2024 and delivered on 01.04.2025. Per the source preview, the petitioners Sunita Nishad and her husband Om Prakash challenged the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad in Appeal No. 18 of 2018, by which the DRAT set aside the order dated 20.08.2018 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and affirmed an auction sale dated 11.12.2017 and a possession notice dated 05.10.2016, directing physical possession of House No. 13/88, Sector-13, Indira Nagar Vistar Yojna, Lucknow to be delivered to Smt. Mamta Yadav.

10. M/S Canara Bank vs M/S Rima Transformers And Conductors

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 March 2025
Sections engaged: 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This intra-court appeal (WA No. 104/2023) was filed by M/S Canara Bank before the Karnataka High Court seeking to set aside the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 8576/2021; the appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 07.03.2025 and the CAV judgment was pronounced on 20 March 2025. Per the source preview, the text_preview references discussions on the Emergency Credit Loan Guarantee Scheme and the banker's prerogative, alongside citations to earlier precedents, in the context of proceedings touching on Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

11. Paramjeet Singh Loanee vs A.U. Small Finance Bank

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 13 February 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4), 14
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP No. 3783 of 2025) was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur and decided on 13 February 2025. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged an order dated 23.12.2024 of the Additional District Magistrate, which — on an application filed by A.U. Small Finance Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act — directed the concerned Tahsildar to take physical possession of the secured assets; the petitioner contended that he had been regular in payment of installments and that there was no cause for issuing such directions, while the respondents' counsel raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability on the ground that the petitioner ought to have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

12. Reserved On: 23.12.2024 vs The Deputy General Manager Of Baroda &

Bench: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date: 10 January 2025
Sections engaged: 13(2), 13(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This petition (CWP No. 12538 of 2024, neutral citation 2025:HHC:2289-DB) was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, reserved on 23.12.2024 and decided on 10.01.2025. Per the source preview, the petitioner (identified in the text_preview as M/s Satyam Prasad Bhandar) sought a writ of certiorari quashing an e-auction notice dated 5.8.2024 along with consequential proceedings, a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to refund money received from successful auction bidder/purchaser, release of outstanding dues from inventory seized at the time of possession, return of high-value inventory videographed at the time of sealing of the mortgaged premises, and revival of an OTS (One Time Settlement) proposal on stipulated terms.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary challenge route. Across the majority of these cases, borrowers and affected parties have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the respective High Courts under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge SARFAESI enforcement actions, reflecting a consistent litigation pattern of seeking constitutional remedies against possession notices, auction proceedings, and related steps taken under Section 13(4).
Interplay between Section 13(2) demand notice and Section 13(4) action. Several cases in this compilation — including cases 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 — engage both Section 13(2) and Section 13(4), indicating that disputes frequently arise at the juncture between the statutory demand notice and the subsequent enforcement action, with borrowers contesting the procedural validity or factual premise of the creditor's move to Section 13(4) powers.
Procedural compliance with objection-disposal requirements. Case 8 (M/S K.C. International vs Indian Bank) explicitly raises the question of whether the bank was required to dispose of the borrower's representation before proceeding under Section 13(4), highlighting that the procedural sequence of objection, response, and then enforcement is an active area of litigation before Indian courts.
Involvement of DRT/DRAT proceedings alongside writ petitions. Multiple cases in this set — including cases 3 and 9 — involve a prior adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, with the High Court writ petition arising as a challenge to DRAT orders; this layered litigation structure (DRT → DRAT → High Court) is a recurring procedural feature in SARFAESI enforcement disputes.
Geographical spread across multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court. The 12 rulings span the Kerala, Calcutta, Orissa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, as well as the Supreme Court of India, reflecting that Section 13(4) litigation is geographically dispersed and does not cluster in any single jurisdiction — a relevant consideration for researchers tracking divergent approaches across forums.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is intended as a structured starting point for legal and tax researchers who need to locate and review judgments involving Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act decided between January 2025 and June 2026. Each entry above provides the authoritative identity fields (court, date, sections engaged, and outcome direction as recorded in the TaxNoticeAI corpus) along with a brief procedural note grounded solely in the source preview for that case. Researchers should use the case title, bench, date, and neutral citation (where provided in the text_preview) to retrieve the full judgment text from indiankanoon.org, the official High Court portals, or the Supreme Court of India's judgment portal before relying on any ruling for any purpose.

Before citing or acting on any of these rulings, researchers should verify: (a) whether the judgment has been appealed, stayed, or reversed by a superior court subsequent to the date noted; (b) whether any Special Leave Petition or Letters Patent Appeal is pending against the order; and (c) whether the SARFAESI Act or the relevant Rules have been amended in a manner that affects the ratio of the ruling. For matters touching on secured creditor enforcement timelines and procedural obligations, it is also advisable to check any applicable RBI Master Directions, IBBI guidelines (where insolvency proceedings intersect), and State-level stamp or registration rules that may bear on enforcement proceedings.

Researchers using this index for comparative or pattern-analysis purposes should note that all 12 source previews in this compilation are introductory excerpts and do not contain the full reasoning, holding, or operative directions of the respective courts. Substantive analysis of any ruling must be based on the complete reported text of the judgment, not on the preview excerpts reflected here.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

SARFAESI Section 13(4): 12 High Court & Supreme Court Rulings (2025–2026)