HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1271 of 2025 (M/S) Smt. Kanta Devi ….....Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Shakib Husain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1/Bank. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the Possession Notice Dated 24.04.2025, issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had taken a housing loan of Rs. 16,40,000/-, from the respondent-Bank, but the instalments could not be regularly paid. The husband of the petitioner died. Now, the possession notice has been issued. It is impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the loan ought to have been insured, and after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been absolved of any liability to repay the loan. But, the respondent-Bank is not revealing any insurance policy. He would also submit that the respondent-Bank should proceed for One Time Settlement, or should give some time to the petitioner to deposit the amount; the matter is in mediation, which is already pending. 2 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/Bank would submit that, in fact, in the mediation proceedings, it is categorically stated by the respondent-Bank that there is no secured policy, insurance policy on the loan taken by the husband of the petitioner. He admits that the matter is under mediation. 6. The proceedings are under the SARFAESI Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action, he can take recourse to it under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. This Court may not interfere in the matter. 7. Insofar as settling the dispute in terms of One Time Settlement or easy instalments is concerned, this Court has no doubt that if the petitioner makes proposal to the respondent-Bank in terms of depositing some portion of the due, the respondent-Bank shall consider it, keeping in view the overall situation of the petitioner. Therefore, having considered, this Court is of the view that in these proceedings, no interference is required. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.05.2025 Ravi Bisht