TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case." 2. The writ petition is filed against the Asset Reconstruction Company. When this matter came up for hearing, this Court has specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/party-in-person how the writ petition is maintainable against Asset Reconstruction Company in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of S. Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (2025 INSC 117) and also Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others ((2022) 5 SCC 345). 3. The party-in-person had sought for time and filed his written submissions. In the written submissions, it is stated that the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application dated 24.03.2026 seeking directions for production of originals of disputed loan documents and forensic handwriting/signature examination. The petitioner's specific stand is that originals are being withheld and only photocopies were provided. It is stated that the immediate, minimum relief required at this stage is procedural and evidentiary, namely: (a) production and preservation of original documents; (b) a limited forensic comparison; (c) a short status quo/stay against further coercive steps only until such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... realm of private contract. The grievance arises from the invocation of coercive statutory powers under SARFAESI on the basis of disputed sanction-acceptance documents. With regard to the Phoenix Arc Private Limited's case referred supra, it is stated that the petitioner does not challenge a SARFAESI measure on merits, but raises a threshold issue as to whether such statutory action can be invoked at all when the execution of foundational document is specifically disputed and original is withheld. Based on these, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 6. Having heard the party-in-person, perused the material on record. While deciding the maintainability of this writ petition, it is appropriate to look at the judgment of the Apex Court in Phoenix Arc Private Limited's case referred supra. It was observed as follows: "18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution - ARC - appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ad-interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured 24 creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed." 7. The Apex Court in S. Shobha's case referred supra had observed as follows: "9. We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Art....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the public and not for private profit". There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point. 10. Even while rejecting the writ petition on the ground of its maintainability, the High Court has protected the interest of the parties by observing in paras 6.1 as under:- "6.1 Following order shall govern, (i) It would be open for the respondent - original petitioner to have recourse to civil remedy before the appropriate Court in relation to the claim and grievance which she agitated by filing the writ petitions. (ii) The appellant-Company is not precluded from taking any recourse in law, if it is of the view that it has any claim against the respondent - party-in-person. (iii) It is also open to either side to invoke arbitration clause and engage in the process of arbitration to resolve the disputes. (iv) The amount of Rs. 24,39,085/-, which has been realized from sale of the gold pursuant to the auction conducted by the appellant-Company, shall remain deposited with the Registry of this Court. (v) The Registry shall invest the said amount in a Fixed Deposit ....