HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 657 of 2025 (MS) Mr. Welesta Pharmaceuticals Inc and others ….....Petitioners Versus Bank of Baroda and another .….Respondents Present:- Mr. Navneet Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- “(i) a suitable writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI” Act 2002) and auction proceedings of the mortgaged property by issuing the Auction Notice dated 29.01.025 published in daily news paper “the Pioneer” in its issue dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.) (ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent bank to decide the representation of petitioner dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) and accept the outstanding dues in easy installments from the petitioners and regularize the loan accounts of the petitioner. (iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have taken loan from respondent bank for running their business; they could not pay the loan on time, therefore, the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) were initiated and property of the petitioners is to be auctioned. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the money within six months; the petitioners could not continue with the Government contract and that is how they could not repay the loan on time. He would submit that after the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also issued and now the property has already been auctioned on 02.03.2025. 4. What is challenged by the petitions is the action taken against the petitioners under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. There is a remedy available to the petitioners to challenge the action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In view thereof, there is no reason for this Court to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 5. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.03.2025 Avneet/