A firm sought quashing of a District Magistrate's order under Section 14 SARFAESI directing delivery of possession of secured assets to the Bank. The High Court declined, holding the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 17 before the DRT and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.8810 of 2026 Decided on : _03.06.2026
M/s Ethix Health Care ... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and 4/State. : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
For seeking the relief of quashing the order dated
7th April, 2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Sirmaur, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been in judicial custody since 18th April, 2025 and being the main partner is accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau and the bank accounts have been frozen. Indulgence of this Court thus is sought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
-2-
the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 26th September, 2025 (Annexure P-5) to the firm and its partner/guarantors, and that measures under Section 13(4) were to be initiated. The same was on the basis of an outstanding amount of Rs.1,21,22,106.71/-, as on 2nd September, 2025. Opportunity had been given, as such, to pay the said amount to the Bank within a period of sixty days from the date of the demand notice.
-3-
Bank, and necessary police assistance, if required, be provided.
lies before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act and it has
also been mentioned in the petition that such remedy is available. There is nothing extraordinary, as such, for this Court to entertain the petition, especially when the outstanding amount is substantial, and nothing has been shown that the petitioner is in a position to clear the same, as he apparently is in judicial custody as well.
M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another 2023 INSC 379 , we do not entertain the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice
(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge
3rd June, 2026 Tarun Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition lies to quash a District Magistrate's Section 14 SARFAESI possession order when an alternative remedy before the DRT is available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and anotherRelied on¶6
M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another 2023 INSC 379 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 6 enactments
M/s Ethix Health Care
State of H.P.
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
Bipin Chander Negi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
