CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhojraj Sharma vs District Magistrate Dehradun & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 May 2026 · Citation: (2026) 05 UK CK 1153

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 14
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Miscellaneous Single No. 1381 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 353 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

Petitioner has taken a loan from respondent no. 4, ICICI Bank Limited, from its branch at 24-A NCR Plaza, New Cantt Road, Hathibarkala, Dehradun. The amount of loan extended to the petitioner was Rs. 49,30,146/-. Petitioner committed default in making payment of the loan, which resulted in the account being declared a Non-Performing Asset.

2.

Respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the aforesaid amount, which has now swollen to the tune of Rs. 74,28,157/-. The District Magistrate, Dehradun, acting under the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, granted permission to the Bank to take possession of the secured asset vide order dated 25.02.2026. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by moving a securitization application. There is no dispute regarding that the said application is still pending.

3.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner being the natural guardian of Master Atharv Sharma (minor), to sell the mortgaged property by way of private sale for adequate market consideration in the in the interest and welfare of the minor child.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to utilize the sale proceeds for liquidation and repayment of the outstanding dues of the respondent Bank in respect of the loan accounts in question.

(iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent Bank from taking coercive steps including physical possession and auction of the secured asset/mortgaged property during pendency of proceedings before the learned DRT."

4.

In view of the pendency of the securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court at this stage. Thus, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

5.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.