Serial No. 19 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1804/2024 CM(4875/2024 GULZAR AHMAD DAR …Petitioner (s) Through: Ms Arba Rehman, Adv. vice Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Advocate Vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD & ANR. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate with Ms Heena Baqal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 25.11.2025 1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has thrown challenge to a demand notice issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 12th August, 2024, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the outstanding dues with the Bank, and the Bank was called upon not to initiate coercive measures. This order was not complied with by the petitioner. 3. Having failed to obtain the desired interim order, the petitioner approached this Court again by way of WP(C) No. 2155/2025, this time, challenging the order dated 12th August, 2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The writ petition was contested by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank, and a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order and judgment dated 24th September, 2025, dismissed the same as being Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 26.11.2025 devoid of any merit. Needless to say that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is invoked by the Bank after complying with Sections 13(2) and 13(4) thereof. 4. In view of the dismissal of the subsequent writ petition, i.e., WP(C) 2155/2025, and failure of the petitioner to comply with the interim directions passed by this Court on 12th August, 2024, there remains nothing in this petition to adjudicate upon. 5. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground to challenge the notice issued under Section 13(2) or 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He has filed petition after petition only with a view to avoid payment of the amount due to the Bank. As is rightly held by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 2155/2025, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary equitable remedy, and a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to invoke it. The instant case is a perfect example of a litigant misusing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to avoid repayment of the loan amount to the Bank. 6. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 25.11.2025 “ARIF” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 26.11.2025