Disposed¶16

Ms Sandhu Road Lines v. Punjab National Bank

Uttarakhand HC6 Apr 2026WPMS/832/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand HC (Nainital), Writ Petition Misc. Single No.832 of 2026, decided 06.04.2026 by Pankaj Purohit, J. Keywords: SARFAESI Act 2002; Section 17; Securitization Application (SA); Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT); auction notice dated 16.03.2026; publication dated 21.03.2026; Punjab National Bank; Ms Sandhu Road Lines; OTS/Rephasement; order dated 14.11.2022; disputed questions of fact; writ petition disposed of; 15-day restraint on auction of secured assets; Cash Credit Limit Rs.125 lakhs; Term Loan Rs.51 lakhs; OMLS Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to file a Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT concerned within 15 days; respondents-Bank restrained from auctioning the secured assets for a period of 15 days from the date of the order.

Ms Sandhu Road Lines Vs Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the respondent-Bank's auction notice and its publication, given that the issues involve disputed questions of fact and a statutory remedy (Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT) is available to the petitioners. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

This Court does not want to interfere in the matter because the issues involve disputed questions of fact and the remedy available to the petitioners is to file a Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy available to them under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing an application before the DRT concerned within 15 days from the date of the order.

¶16

Key takeaways

As interim protection, for a period of 15 days from the date of the order, no auction of the property (the secured assets) shall be made by the respondents-Bank, so that the petitioners may avail the remedy before the DRT concerned.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI — WRIT AGAINST BANK AUCTION DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTION TO AVAIL STATUTORY REMEDY BEFORE DRT: Petitioners, transport-business borrowers of Punjab National Bank (Cash Credit Limit of Rs.125 lakhs and Term Loan of Rs.51 lakhs under the OMLS Scheme), challenged the auction notice dated 16.03.2026 and publication dated 21.03.2026, alleging violation of this Court's earlier order dated 14.11.2022 directing consideration for OTS/Rephasement after hearing. Held (Pankaj Purohit, J.): the issues involve disputed questions of fact and an efficacious statutory remedy exists — a Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to file such application before the DRT concerned within 15 days, coupled with interim protection that no auction of the secured assets shall be made by the Bank for 15 days from the date of the order.

¶1

2026:UHC:2385

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.832 of 2026

¶4

06 April, 2026

¶5

Ms Sandhu Road Lines and Another --Petitioners Versus Punjab National Bank and Another --Respondents

¶6

Presence :-

¶7

Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for respondentsBank.

¶8

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

¶9

This writ petition has been filed by petitioners challenging the auction notice dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure No.17) and subsequent publication dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure No.18) issued by respondent-Bank and further other ancillary reliefs.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are engaged in business of transportation as well as other allied business activities and are earning their livelihood therefrom. Petitioner No.1 had availed a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.125 Lakhs from respondent No.2 whereas petitioner No.2 had availed a Term Loan under the OMLS Scheme to the extent of Rs.51 Lakhs. He further submits that petitioners have been regular in operating and maintaining their loan accounts and there has been no willful default on their part.

¶11

He further submitted that respondent-Bank has acted in clear violation and disregard to order dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court, wherein, a

¶12

¶13

2026:UHC:2385

¶14

specific direction was issued to consider the case of petitioners for OTS/Rephasement after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

¶15

Since, issues involved in the present writ petition have disputed questions of facts to be determined and the remedy available to petitioners is to file Securitization Application(SA) under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), therefore, this Court doesn’t want to interfere in the present matter.

¶16

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioners to avail the statutory remedy available to them under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by filing an application before the DRT concerned within 15 days from today. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, only this much is provided that, for a period of 15 days from today, no auction of the property, i.e., the secured assets, shall be made by the respondents-Bank, so that the petitioners may avail the remedy before the DRT concerned.

¶17

6. Pending application(s), if any, stands

¶18

disposed of.

¶19

( Pankaj Purohit, J .) 06.04.2026

¶20

¶21

Ms Sandhu Road Lines v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sandhu Road Lines v. Punjab National Bank

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

Tinku Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pramod Kumar Vs Chief Agriculture Officer

Mahendra Singh and Others Vs District Magistrate

India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited Vs District Magistrate Haridwar

Hukum Singh Vs District Magistrate

Vikram Singh Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand