April 2 vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Dehradun & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2637 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

April 2 vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Dehradun & Ors on 2 April, 2026

                                                               2026:UHC:2336-DB


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

                                     AND

    THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                  Writ Petition (M/B) No.43 of 2023
                                 April 2, 2026


  Ajay Kumar                                                ----Petitioner

                                     Versus

  Debts Recovery Tribunal Dehradun & Ors.                 ----Respondents

  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  Presence:-
  Mr. Sayed Kashif Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioner
  Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel respondent nos.3, 4 and 5/Bank.


  JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

1. The instant writ petition is directed against the

order dated 24.06.2022 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal,

Dehradun in Securitization Application No.164/2021,

whereby the application filed by the petitioner challenging

the action of the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act

has been consigned on the joint statement of the parties

that the loan account had already been closed and

therefore, cause of action does not survive. The petitioner

has also challenged the order passed by Debt Recovery

Appellate Tribunal dated 23.01.2023, whereby the

Appellate Tribunal has declined to interfere with the order

of DRT. The DRAT has also noted in its order that the

2026:UHC:2336-DB

securitization application was consigned to record in the

light of the statement made by counsel for the parties.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the

respondents-Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the

maintainability of the instant writ petition. He submits that

the order closing the proceedings was passed by DRT on

the statement of counsel for the petitioner and which was

endorsed by the counsel for the respondent-Bank. In such

a situation, neither the appeal filed before the DRAT nor

the instant writ petition is maintainable.

3. We have perused the order passed by DRT dated

24.06.2022 and we find that the proceedings of the

securitization application were closed on the joint

statement of learned counsel for the parties. The order

reads as follows:-

"Called out. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant & Senior Law

Manager for the Respondent Bank present.

Ld. Senior Law Manager of the Respondent Bank

submitted that account stands closed. Ld. Counsel for the

Applicant stated that loan account has already been closed by

the Respondent Bank. Therefore, no cause of action survives in

the S.A. hence S.A. is disposed off in the light of statement of

both the parties.

Record be consigned."

2026:UHC:2336-DB

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not

dispute that the proceedings were closed on basis of

statement made by counsel of the petitioner before the

DRT. He tried to submit that the account was declared as

NPA wrongly, however, since the securitization application

was not pressed by the petitioner himself, therefore, in the

present proceedings, we decline to examine the issue as to

whether the account was rightly or wrongly declared as

NPA. In case, the petitioner was really aggrieved by

declaration of his account as NPA, he should have pressed

the securitization application, instead of withdrawing the

same.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is

dismissed.

6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 02.04.2026 Rajni