HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2434 of 2025 M/s Kisan Seeds Corporation and others .....Petitioners Versus The National Bank Ltd. ….Respondent Present: Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Irum Zeba, Advocate, holding brief of Dr. K.H. Gupta, advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The petitioners seek directions to the respondent/Bank to release the property no.1 (immovable property bearing Khasra No. 327Ka area 1110 sq.mt. of Village Amritpur, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand) as per the sanction letter of the compromise proposal dated 13.03.2024 and also to give some time to the petitioners to deposit the remaining amount to the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. A dispute with regard to the payment of the loan was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun (“the DRT Dehradun”) in OA No.563 of 2022, The Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s Kasan Seeds Corporation and others, which was decided 30.09.2024 based on the settlement arrived at between the parties. This order reads as follows:- “The applicant bank filed the Original Application for recovery against defendants. As per Ld. Counsel for applicant 2 bank, the accounts have already been settled and as per settlement, the defendants shall repay the amount of settlement from 13.03.2024 within a period of 12 months i.e. on or before 12.03.2025. In case of default of payment on the part of the defendants, the respondent bank will charge compound interest on overdue amount. If the defendants shall pay amount claimed by the applicant bank in O.A. No. 563 of 2022 and O.A. No. 564 of 2022 within the period of settled between the parties, in that case, applicant bank shall provide title deeds etc in relation to mortgaged property within a period of 30 days from the date of last payment for which applicant bank is entitled. In case of non-payment by the defendants, the applicant bank shall be entitled for issuance of recovery certificate in relation to rest amount which shall be found on that day. The Original Application in relation to recovery of O.A. No. 563 of 2022 and O.A. No. 564 of 2022 are disposed off in the light of above observations. Interim order if any vacated. All Interim Applications are also disposed off in the light of above. Record be consigned. Copy of this order be placed on O.A. No. 564 of 2022 The Nainital Bank Ltd Vs. M/s Kisan Industries and Ors.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rs.4,5003900.28/-has been paid by the petitioners to the respondent/Bank, but the respondent/Bank is not releasing the mortgaged property at SL. No.1 as incorporated in the settlement deed dated 13.03.2024, Annexure 2 to the writ petition. He submits that once the property is released one-by-one, the petitioners would be in position to repay the entire amount as per the settlement. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that they have yet not received any instruction from the Bank. 3 6. The dispute between the parties was dealt with by the DRT Dehradun and the original application was decided based on the compromise that has been entered into between the parties. There are, in fact, conditions in the compromise, which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It speaks that on payment having been made, the Bank will release the mortgaged property equal to the amount deposited by the borrower and the manner has also been prescribed in the compromise deed. 7. Fact remains that based on the compromise entered into between the parties, the OA has been decided. The final order of the DRT Dehradun dated 30.09.2024 has already been quoted hereinabove. In para 2 of it, it is categorically stated that in case, payment is made, as stipulated in the compromise, the applicant bank shall provide title deeds etc. in relation to mortgaged property within a period of 30 days from the date of last payment for which applicant bank is entitled. 8. Now what the petitioners want is to enforce through this Court, is the order of the DRT Dehradun. For this purpose, the writ petition may not be entertained. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent/Bank by not releasing the property in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, based on which, the original application was decided by the DRT Dehradun on 30.09.2024, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the DRT Dehradun that the respondent/Bank is violating the order. This Court has no doubt that if such an application is made, the DRT 4 Dehradun shall take note of it and pass such orders, as is permissible under the law. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.08.2025 Jitendra