Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar v. Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate Division Jawali and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2026CWP/9421/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower's writ petition challenging SARFAESI-related action was withdrawn after counsel conceded it was not maintainable, since the petitioner had already availed and exhausted the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the petition; dismissed as withdrawn with pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate… — Banking and Recovery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 9421/2025 Decided on: 10.04.2026 Neeraj Kumar …Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors. .…Respondents

¶5

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner: Mr. Dhairya Sushant, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶9

Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6. Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.7 & 9.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

¶11

When this matter was taken up on 09.04.2026,

¶12

learned counsel for the respondents apprised the Court that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy available to him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) before

¶13

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶14

¶15

the Debts Recovery Tribunal. An order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh, in Neeraj Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.² was placed on record. Noticing the issue involved in the said order and the adjudication thereof, learned vice counsel for the petitioner was directed to obtain instructions for satisfying the maintainability of the writ petition.

¶16

Today, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of instructions imparted to him by the original counsel, has fairly submitted at the very outset that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the petitioner having already availed the statutory remedy available to him, which has also been adjudicated upon by the competent authority.

¶17

In view of the above submissions, learned vice counsel

¶18

for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, being not maintainable. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶20

10^th April, 2026(rohit)

¶21

2 SA NO. 25/2021 decided on 31.12.2023

Neeraj Kumar v. Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate Division Jawali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate Division Jawali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanika Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Singh Vs the UOI and Others

Rita Devi Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Sachinder Dutt Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Rajesh Nanda Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Sher Singh Vs UOI and Others