The High Court of Delhi has stayed proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) against Axis Bank Limited, along with summons issued to its Managing Director and CEO. In an order dated October 16, 2025, Justice Sachin Datta issued a prima facie finding that the NCST’s proceedings were “without jurisdiction.”
The Court prima facie held that provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, “cannot be invoked to preclude/ prevent the exercise of mortgage right/security interest of the petitioner” bank.
The judgment was passed in W.P.(C) 16123/2025, filed by Axis Bank seeking to restrain the NCST (respondent no. 1) from investigating a representation filed by respondent no. 2 and to quash summons and an order issued by the Commission.
Background of the Case
The matter originates from a credit facility of Rs. 16,68,99,098.28/- sanctioned by Axis Bank to M/s Sundev Appliances Ltd (respondent no. 3) in 2013. This facility was secured by an equitable mortgage dated December 12, 2013, created by the promoters of respondent no. 3 over a property located in Vasai, Thane, Maharashtra (“the subject property”).
According to the judgment, the borrower’s account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on October 28, 2017, due to non-payment. Consequently, the bank invoked its rights under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to take possession of the mortgaged property.
The bank subsequently obtained an order dated January 19, 2024, from the District Magistrate, Palghar, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, permitting it to take physical possession.
In parallel, respondent no. 2, who was not a party to the loan agreement, instituted Civil Suit No. 4/2025 before the Civil Judge, Vasai. The suit sought a permanent injunction against the bank from dealing with the property, claiming that respondent no. 2 held ownership by virtue of an Agreement to Sell dated July 27, 2016, and that the bank had failed to conduct proper due diligence. The High Court’s order notes that the civil suit is pending and no interim order has been passed.
Respondent no. 2 also filed a representation dated February 10, 2025, with the NCST, alleging the commission of atrocities under Sections 3(1)(f) and (g) of the Atrocities Act.
NCST Actions and Petitioner’s Arguments
Upon receiving the representation, the NCST issued a Sitting Notice dated July 18, 2025, and later a summons dated July 29, 2025, compelling the “in person” appearance of the bank’s MD and CEO.
The bank’s representatives appeared before the NCST on August 18, 2025, and submitted that the Commission’s investigation was “wholly without jurisdiction.” The bank argued that respondent no. 2 had no locus standi, was neither the owner nor in possession of the property, and had suppressed the pendency of civil suits regarding the same matter.
Subsequently, on September 22, 2025, the NCST passed an order directing an action report and stated, “no action should be taken by petitioner pertaining to the auctioning of the subject property until complete clarity is obtained qua the ownership rights of tribal persons.” The NCST issued fresh summons on October 6, 2025, for a hearing on October 16, 2025.
Before the High Court, Axis Bank contended that the impugned actions of the NCST were “without jurisdiction and merit” and constituted a “gross abuse of the process.”
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Sachin Datta, in his analysis, agreed with the petitioner’s contentions on a prima facie basis. The Court stated, “Prima facie, in the context of the facts of the present case Sections 3(1)(f) and (g) of the Atrocities Act are not attracted inasmuch the same cannot be invoked to preclude/ prevent the exercise of mortgage right/security interest of the petitioner.”
The Court further held, “Also, the proceedings pending before respondent no.1, particularly, the summons issued therein which requires the MD & CEO of the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.1, are without jurisdiction.”
Addressing the summons issued to the bank’s senior officials, the Court observed, “No rationale has been recorded for requiring senior officials of the petitioner to appear personally before the respondent no.1.”
The High Court placed reliance on a coordinate bench’s decision in State Bank of India and Anr. v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Anr. (W.P(C) 3471/2013), which itself had relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs Jasvir Singh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 288.
Quoting the Jasvir Singh case, the order noted that the Supreme Court “deprecated the practice” of summoning senior officers, stating their presence should be required “as a last resort, in rare and exceptional cases, where such presence is absolutely necessary.”
Based on this, the High Court passed its final order: “Accordingly, considering the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs Jasvir Singh and Ors. (supra) and considering the factual conspectus, there shall be stay of the impugned proceedings and the summons dated 29.07.2025 and 06.10.2025 issued by respondent no.1, till the next date of hearing.”
The Court issued notice to the respondents, directing a reply to be filed within four weeks. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on February 5, 2026.
