Dismissed¶20

Hardeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Sept 2025WPMS/2536/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital; Pankaj Purohit, J.; Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2536 of 2025 (decided 09.09.2025); Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; SARFAESI Act 2002 Sections 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17; Amending Act No.44 of 2016; third-party/subsequent purchaser of secured asset; possession proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar; alternative remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; writ petition dismissed, interim order vacated; Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Moti Ram.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to ascertain his rights; interim order dated 29.08.2025 vacated. ¶20

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Banking and Recovery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to ascertain his rights; interim order dated 29.08.2025 vacated.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a subsequent purchaser of the secured asset who was not a party to the Section 14 proceedings, could obtain relief under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, or whether his remedy lies in an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

After the amendment to Section 17 of the Act of 2002 by Amending Act No.44 of 2016 (w.e.f. 01.09.2016), the petitioner's claim can be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on an application made by the affected person; the Court therefore declined to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where disputed facts can be entertained while hearing the application.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Section 14 possession order by Chief Judicial Magistrate challenged by alleged subsequent purchaser of secured asset via writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — petitioner claimed purchase through registered sale deeds dated 29.04.2015 and 13.08.2019 and non-receipt of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), and non-joinder in the Section 14 proceedings — Held, after amendment of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 by Amending Act No.44 of 2016 (w.e.f. 01.09.2016), the claim of an affected person can be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on application; the Court declined to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction — writ petition dismissed with liberty to move an application under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal where disputed facts can be entertained — interim order dated 29.08.2025 vacated (Pankaj Purohit, J.).

¶1

2025:UHC:7959

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2536 of 2025 09^th September, 2025

¶4

Hardeep Singh ………….Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents

¶7

Presence:-

¶8

Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the State.

¶10

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 02.05.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Application No.113 of 2025, Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Moti Ram and another , under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2002”), by which the secured creditor was directed to take possession of the secured assets i.e., the house now according to the petitioner belongs to him.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan was advanced to Moti Ram – the original owner of the house – on 30.04.2015. The said house was already sold by way of a registered sale deed on 29.04.2015 to one Vidyawati who sold this house to the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on 13.08.2019 and since then the petitioner is owner and is in possession of the aforesaid house.

¶13

It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is owner in possession

¶14

¶15

2025:UHC:7959

¶16

of the secured assets, therefore no proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 could have been initiated without hearing him.

¶17

It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that he did not received the notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act of 2002 and he was not a party in the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

¶18

This Court has appreciated the factual position canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

An amendment has been brought to Section 17 of the Act of 2002 by Amending Act No.44 of 2016 w.e.f., 01.09.2016 and thereafter such a claim can be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on an application made by the affected person; therefore this Court is not inclined to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

¶20

Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to ascertain his rights where the disputed facts can be entertained while hearing the application.

¶21

Interim order dated 29.08.2025 stands vacated.

¶22

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025

¶23

¶24

Hardeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Deltas Pharma (Earlier Name Padmawati) Vs Smt. Adesh Kumari

Manish Batra Vs Priya Bhardwaj Batra

M/S L.V Heat Exchangers, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Shailendra Mohan Singhal Vs Ramesh Prakash Singhal

Robin Kumar Sharma Vs District Magistrate Nainital

Mohd Akhlaq Siddiqui Vs Vaibhav Goyal