HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3226 of 2024 Nafish Ahamad .....Petitioner Versus Authorized Officer, State Bank of India ….Respondent Present: Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi and Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocates for the respondent. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to a notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) revealing therein that the possession of the secure assets have been taken by the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner has availed a loan for business transaction, but in the year 2013, he died. The petitioner and his brother tried to maintain the account, but due to impact of COVID-19 pandemic, they suffered huge loss and could not up-date their loan account. Thereafter, proceedings under 2 the SARFAESI Act were issued and the impugned notice has been issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has all his intention to repay the loan. He may pay in easy instalments. Therefore, an interference is warranted. 5. The SARFAESI Act for these purposes is a self contained court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by an action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, he is free to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. For that purpose, interference may not be warranted. 6. Insofar as, the intention of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner may very well deposit some portion of the loan amount so as to satisfy the respondent he has an intention to repay it. This Court has no doubt, if such an intention is expressed, respondent may definitely consider it. 7. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.03.2025 Jitendra