HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 467 of 2025 (M/S) Pradeep Kuniyal and others ….....Petitioners Versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this writ petition is made to e-auction-cum-sale notice and possession notice, whereby e-auction-cum-sale has been fixed on 20.02.2025. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had taken a financial assistance of Rs. 73,00,000/- from the respondent, but they could not pay all the remaining amount. In para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioners write that they undertake to repay remaining EMIs. 4. When the amount was not paid, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent took recourse to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) and now e-auction-cum-sale notice has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have paid all the dues; 2 they are not liable to pay any amount; the entire proceeding under the SARFAESI Act is illegal, therefore, an interference is warranted in this case as e-auction-cum-sale is underway. 5. In fact, what is argued on behalf of the petitioners is not consistent with what is pleaded. As noted in para 10, the petitioners write as below:- “10. That the petitioners are continuously paying the EMI’s which is clearly reflected in the statements of account and undertakes to repay his remaining EMI’s therefore, the actionof the respondent is arbitrary and illegal.” 6. Above paragraph makes it clear that as per the petitioners also, they were required to pay EMIs to the respondent, which they failed to do. Even otherwise, an action that is inconsistent with the SARFAESI Act may be challenged under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners could have taken recourse to Section 17 of the SARFESI Act. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.02.2025 Avneet/