Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69335-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8881 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mrs Deepti Vohra Malhotra Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sri Prakash,Sudhanshu Kumar,Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Arpita Tarmali,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Sanjay Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Bank initiated under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, on the ground that compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act has not been made. Undisputedly, the loan was taken by the company and the property against which auction is proposed by the respondent bank was pledged/mortgaged. The petitioner apparently is living somewhere else. According to bank, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been sent to the concerned persons. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to examine the factual issues, particularly when the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. In the facts of the case, we provide that if such approach is made within two weeks from today, the application would be entertained by the DRT, without raising any objection with regard to the limitation. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad