Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 714
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
KISHAN DEI AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
H W PM S 1 4 1 9 / 2 0 2 5
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lalit Miglani
For the Respondents: Ajay Singh Bisht
The court cannot entertain a writ petition when the appropriate authority, DRT, is already dealing with the matter under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Headnote:This case involves an application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 regarding the non-repayment of a loan and the issues surrounding the auction of petitioner properties. The court finds that the DRT is the appropriate authority to address the matter. The key questions relate to whether the writ petition can be entertained given that the DRT is seized of the case. The court rules that the petitioners have liberty to pursue their application before the DRT as the appropriate venue for their concerns.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are guarantors for a loan default. (Para 2) |
| 2. writ petition seeks relief against the auction of properties. (Para 3) |
3. To issue the writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities not create third party interest in the alleged land till the disposal of the present writ petition and/or”
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
H W PM S 1 4 1 9 / 2 0 2 5 o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocat e, for t he pet it ioners. Mr. Aj ay Singh Bisht , Advocat e, for t he respondent no. 1. Pet it ioners st ood as guarant ors ( 2) in respect of a loan t aken by respondent no. 2. Since respondent no. 2 has default ed in repaym ent of loan, t herefore, Bank of I ndia has filed an Original Applicat ion under t he Recovery of Debt s and Bankrupt cy Act , 1993 before DRT, Dehradun. Pet it ioners report edly m oved an applicat ion before DRT in t he said proceedings praying t hat Bank of I ndia be rest rained from auct ioning t he propert y belonging t o pet it ioners. DRT has called obj ect ion on t he said applicat ion and t he next dat e fixed in t he m at t er is 3 rd June, 2025. I n t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioners have sought t he follow ing relief: “ 1. To issue t he w rit order or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing DRT Dehradun t o dispose of t he applicant ’s I .A. ( Diary Num ber 2162 dat ed 28.04.2025) as soon as possible and unt il it is disposed of, st ay t he auct ion on t he pet it ioner’s propert ies only and/ or 2. To issue t he writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of Cert iorari t o quashed t he possession not ice dat ed 10.12.2024 ( annexure 12) qua t o pet it ioners and/ or,
(3) Since DRT is seized of the matter and as per the Act of 1993, DRT is the appropriate authority to deal with the matter, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, with petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to press for disposal of their aforesaid application before the DRT.
