Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Axis Bank Ltd. (‘petitioner’) seeking restrain on the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (‘Respondent 1’) from proceeding with any investigation, inquiry or action regarding its entitlement of the mortgaged property under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the SARFAESI Act’). Further, Respondent 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’) alleging commission of atrocities.
A Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., held that the SC/ST Act could not be invoked to prevent bank’s rights pertaining to mortgage or security. Accordingly, it stayed the proceedings by Respondent 1 and listed the matter in February 2026.
Background
In 2013, a credit facility of Rs 16,68,99,098.28 was sanctioned favoring the borrowers (‘Respondent 3’) of the petitioner and as a security, an equitable mortgage was created by the promoters of Respondent 3 in respect of a property situated in Maharashtra (‘said property’).
In 2017, on account of non-payment of the credit facility, the account of Respondent 3 was declared a Non-Performing Asset (‘NPA’) by the petitioner invoking Section 13(4) of the he SARFAESI Act to enforce its security interest and take possession of the mortgaged property. In 2024, the Court of District Magistrate permitted the petitioner to obtain physical possession of the said property, and the Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate issued a notice in the same regard.
Respondent 2 instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioner from dealing with the said property and a declaration that the attachment of the said property without prior permission of the landowners was illegal. The same was still pending before the Court of Civil Judge.
In the meantime, Respondent 2 also preferred a representation under Sections 3(1)(f) and (g) of the SC/ST Act alleging commission of atrocities against him by the petitioner. Respondent 1 issued a Sitting Notice and called upon the Managing Director (‘MD’) and Chief Executive Officer (‘CEO’) of the petitioner to appear in person, but they didn’t turn up and consequently, summons got issued. The petitioner appeared before Respondent 1 and sought withdrawal of the said notice and summons stating that the said notice was received three days after the sitting was scheduled to take place.
The petitioner contended that instead of taking cognizance of the request, Respondent 1 directed the Collector and District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to submit a status report on the matter. Thereafter, Respondent 1 passed an order stating that no action should be taken by the petitioner pertaining to the auctioning of the said property until complete clarity was obtained regarding the ownership rights of tribal persons.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that Sections 3(1)(f) and (g) of the SC/ST Act were not attracted because the same could not be invoked to preclude or prevent the exercise of mortgage rights or security interest of the petitioner.
The Court specified that no rationale had been recorded for requiring senior officials of the petitioner to appear personally before the Respondent 1 and opined that the proceedings pending before Respondent 1, particularly the summons issued therein, which required the MD and CEO of the petitioner to appear in person, were without jurisdiction.
Thus, the court imposed stay of the impugned proceedings and the summons issued by Respondent 1 and listed the matter on 5-2-2026.
[Axis Bank Ltd. v. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, W.P.(C) No. 16123 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Satvik Varma, Sr. Adv., Manmeet Singh, Alok Shanker, Anugrah Robin Frey, Shantanu Parmar, Ajay Raj and Balram, Adv.