HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2025 (M/S) Ankit Kumar Somlal Singh Ghavri and another ...Petitioners Versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited and another ...Respondents Present:- Mr. Pradeep Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State Counsel, and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had taken home loan of Rs. 10 lakh from the respondent no. 1; they could not maintain the installments for repayment of loan, therefore, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated against them and possession order has been passed. 4. Yesterday, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are ready and willing to pay the entire dues, even that day. It was submitted that the possession of the residential house of the petitioners was taken; mala fide was attributed to the respondents. 5. Yesterday, this Court passed the order that “Let learned State Counsel get categorical instructions if tomorrow, the entire 2 dues is to be paid by the petitioner, what is the amount? And; also the fact that at what stage, the proceeding is underway?”. 6. Today, learned State Counsel would submit that what is the exact amount of recovery, it is between the respondent no. 1 and the petitioners. 7. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a different argument. It is argued that the respondent no. 1 bank cannot proceed against the petitioners against the securities, because the security interest mortgaged in favour of the respondent no. 1 has not been registered with the Central Registry. He would refer to Section 26-D of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as hereunder:- “26-D. Right of enforcement of securities.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, from the date of commencement of the provisions of this Chapter, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise the rights of enforcement of securities under Chapter III unless the security interest created in its favour by the borrower has been registered with the Central Registry.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act can only be made to an order passed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, whereas in the instant matter that stage has already been crossed and possession order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been passed. 9. The SARFAESI Act has been enacted so as to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest. This is a complete Code in itself. In the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Girnar Corrugators Private Limited and others, (2023) 3 SCC 210, in para 34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed that “If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4)/order passed under Section 14, then 3 the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal….”. Paragraph 34 of the judgment reads as hereunder :- “34. Under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the case may be is required to assist the secured creditor in getting the possession of the secured assets. Under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act, neither the District Magistrate nor the metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4)/order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal/application under Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act.” (emphasis supplied) 10. The petitioners are aggrieved by an action that has been taken by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 against them under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners may challenge such action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 11. In view thereof, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 12. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.04.2025 Avneet/