Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Reserve Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Home
Himachal Pradesh HC
2026
Pradeep Kumar Vs Reserve Bank of IndiaPradeep Kumar v. Reserve Bank of India

Dismissed¶25

Pradeep Kumar v. Reserve Bank of India

SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Section 13(2) demand notice

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2026CWP/10868/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 10868 of 2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, decided 03.07.2026 (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin C. Negi, J). Challenge to SARFAESI Section 13(2) notice dated 21.05.2026; Court held writ petition not maintainable at this stage in view of borrower's Section 13(3)/(3A) right to represent/object to the secured creditor; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file representation to the Bank; prior partial settlement before DRT in SA/383/2025 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank Limited) noted. Keywords: SARFAESI, Section 13(2), maintainability, withdrawal, representation, Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the respondent-Bank by way of a representation; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of accordingly. ¶25

Why is it important?

The present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has a right to approach the respondent-Bank for the redressal of his grievance. ¶19

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the respondent-Bank by way of a representation; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable at this stage, in view of the borrower's right under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 13 to make a representation or raise an objection to the secured creditor.

Court's answer

The present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has a right to approach the respondent-Bank for the redressal of his grievance.

Ratio / Principle

Under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, if on receipt of a notice under sub-section (2) the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Section 13(2) demand notice — Writ petition challenging notice dated 21.05.2026 held not maintainable at this stage, the borrower having a right under sub-sections (3)/(3A) of Section 13 to make a representation or raise an objection to the secured creditor, who is bound to consider it; earlier proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal had resulted in partial settlement (order dated 12.01.2026 in SA/383/2025, Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank Limited); petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the respondent-Bank by way of representation; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

A

2026:HHC:26606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 10868 of 2026 Decided on : 03.07.2026

Pradeep Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Reserve Bank of India and others

…Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral )

Apparently, the challenge is to the notice dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-5), issued under Section 13(2) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’).

It is not disputed that on an earlier occasion also, proceedings were initiated and the matter was partly settled on account of some payments having been received in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which would be clear from the order

1^{Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?}

2

2026:HHC:26606

dated 12.01.2026, passed in SA/383/2025, titled as Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank Limited (Annexure P- 3).

A perusal of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act would go on to show that there is a right as such, under subsection (3) (3A) of the said Act that “ if, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate [within fifteen days] of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower ”.

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has a right to approach the respondent-Bank for the redressal of his grievance.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner submits that she wants to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to approach the respondent-Bank by

3

2026:HHC:26606

way of a representation.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed

as withdrawn, with liberty, as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

July 03, 2026

(Shivank Thakur)

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable at this stage, in view of the borrower's right under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 13 to make a representation or raise an objection to the secured creditor.¶19
The court held
The present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has a right to approach the respondent-Bank for the redressal of his grievance.ratio¶19

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank LimitedReferred¶17
SA/383/2025

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 200213(2)¶12
The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)13¶18 13(3), 13(3A)¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, under challenge in this writ petition.¶12
21.05.2026
Prior proceeding
On an earlier occasion, proceedings were initiated and the matter was partly settled on account of some payments having been received in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.¶13
Prior proceeding
Order dated 12.01.2026 passed in SA/383/2025, Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank Limited (Annexure P-3), evidencing the earlier DRT proceedings and partial settlement.¶17

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Pradeep Kumar¶4
Ms. Madhurika Sekhon
respondent
Reserve Bank of India and others¶7

Coram

AI extract

G.S. Sandhawaliaauthor¶10
Bipin C. Negimember¶10

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Himachal Pradesh HC
Decided on: 3 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 2 Jul 2026
Case no.: CWP/10868/2026
CNR: HPHC010314682026
Topic: Banking and Recovery
Bench: Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia Bipin Chander Negi
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: CWP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia Bipin Chander Negi

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Ors.
2 Jul 2026
Desh Raj Vs State of Hp and Others
2 Jul 2026
court on its Own Motion Vs State of Hp
2 Jul 2026
Usha Kunwar and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.
3 Jul 2026
Kapil Rana and Ors. Vs Hrtc
3 Jul 2026
Manohar Lal Vs Hrtc and Anr.
3 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Pradeep Kumar v. Reserve Bank of India, CWP/10868/2026 (HP), decided on 3 July 2026.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank LimitedReferred¶17

Open Authorities

Statutes3

The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 200213(2)
The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)13 · 13(3), 13(3A)

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Notice dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, under challenge in this writ petition.21.05.2026
On an earlier occasion, proceedings were initiated and the matter was partly settled on account of some payments having been received in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Order dated 12.01.2026 passed in SA/383/2025, Pradeep Kumar Vs. AU Small Finance Bank Limited (Annexure P-3), evidencing the earlier DRT proceedings and partial settlement.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.S. Sandhawalia and Bipin C. Negi

Parties & counsel