---
title: "Rajasthan HC : Assignment under section 5 SARFAESI survives even if NPA tag quashed, guarantors can’t reopen decade-old ARC deal."
date: 2025-10-17
author: "Shrishail Kittad"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/insolvency-bankruptcy/rajasthan-hc-upholds-sarfaesi-assignment-despite-npa-quash/
---

# Rajasthan HC : Assignment under section 5 SARFAESI survives even if NPA tag quashed, guarantors can’t reopen decade-old ARC deal.

Posted On - 17 October, 2025 •

By - [Shrishail Kittad](https://www.indialaw.in/people/adv-shrishail-kittad/ "Posts by Shrishail Kittad") and [Rahul Sundaram](https://www.indialaw.in/people/rahul-sundaram/ "Posts by Rahul Sundaram")

[![Rajasthan HC Upholds SARFAESI Assignment Despite NPA Quash](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/s9cc2skysjm-1.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/s9cc2skysjm-1.jpg)

The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) delivered what is probably the final nail in a decade long coffin of litigation around a palatial hotel in Jaisalmer. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1240 of 2024 (Harendra Singh Rathore & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.) Justice Rekha Borana refused to stay or undo a 2014 assignment of a ₹ 25 crore debt by SBI to Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co., holding that the invalidation of the NPA tag by a tribunal six years ago dented only enforcement action under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and not the bank’s earlier sale of the loan under section 5. The  order is a textbook lesson on res judicata, the independent life of an assignment deed, and the thin locus a guarantor has to challenge intercreditor transfers.

## **Facts that refused to die**

Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. (HG) borrowed ₹ 24 crore in January 2008; a corporate guarantee shield was provided by its four director shareholders, all members of the Rathore family. When cashflow dried up the account was restructured, then classified as NPA, and finally put on the block by SBI in March 2014. Alchemist ARC picked up the entire debt, served the statutory notices under section 13(2) and section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, moved the NCLT under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, got an IRP appointed and saw a resolution plan approved—all while the borrowers kept knocking on every possible judicial door.

## **Forum hopping that achieved little **

The borrowers’ first big win came in May 2015 when DRT Jaipur held the original NPA classification illegal and set aside the possession notice. But the victory proved pyrrhic: DRAT dismissed the ARC’s appeal yet the Delhi High Court, while maintaining status quo on the property, allowed the ARC to issue a fresh section 13(2) notice. Meanwhile NCLT New Delhi (31 March 2017) upheld the assignment, NCLAT (29 October 2018) agreed, and the Supreme Court dismissed two special leave petitions (23 October 2017; 2019). Civil suits, criminal FIRs and a protest petition followed, but the ownership of the debt never returned to the hotel company.

## **Prayers that pushed the envelope **

In the present writ the guarantors asked the High Court to declare the 2014 assignment void ab initio, restore the company’s title over the hotel, quash the 2022 DRT recovery order and the 2024 demand notice, and even hand the file to a CBI/SIT for a criminal probe. Their counsel argued that once the DRT had held the NPA itself to be bad, every offspring of that NPA—including the sale to the ARC—was stillborn. They also invoked alleged violation of RBI prudential norms and fraud in the deed.

## **Defence that stuck **

SBI and Alchemist ARC led with a simple chart: the identical plea had been raised and rejected at least six times before fora ranging from the district judge to the Supreme Court. Relying on the apex court ruling in ICICI Bank v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries (2010) 10 SCC 1 they submitted that a debt is an asset in the hands of a bank; section 5 of the SARFAESI Act empowers it to transfer that asset without asking the borrower’s leave and without waiting for an NPA badge. The validity of the assignment, they stressed, is separate from the validity of the later enforcement steps under section 13. They also questioned the maintainability of the writ, pointing to pending alternative remedies before DRT and DRAT.

## **Analysis: why the court said ‘no’ **

Justice Borana found that the petitioners were attempting to relitigate an issue that had travelled right up to the Supreme Court and had uniformly been decided against them. The judge held that section 13(2) and section 13(4) require an NPA declaration, but section 5 does not; therefore the DRT’s 2015 order striking down the NPA hit only the possession proceedings, not the prior sale deed. Following APS Star Industries she reiterated that the moment a bank transfers a debt together with the underlying security the borrower becomes the assignee’s debtor; the correctness of the internal NPA tag is irrelevant to that transfer. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court had already granted liberty to the ARC to issue a fresh notice, and the Supreme Court had directed that IBC proceedings “will continue unimpeded.” On the criminal investigation plea the judge recorded that two FIRs had been closed or quashed and a protest petition was still pending, so no fresh writ direction was called for. Finally, the recovery order and notice could be challenged in the statutory hierarchy of DRT and DRAT; a writ would not normally interfere where an alternative efficacious remedy exists.

## **Concluding paragraph **

The gavel that dismissed the Writ Petition is therefore a clarion call to every borrower that a bank’s right to sell its loan is not tethered to the fate of its NPA label. Once the debt has been assigned, successive forum including the highest court will guard the finality of that contract. For lenders and asset reconstruction companies the message is reassuring, Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act gives them an independent key to unlock bad assets, and that key is not dulled even if Section 13 enforcement hits a judicial roadblock.

For further detail write to [contact@indialaw.in](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)

[Insolvency & Bankruptcy](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-laws/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---