HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1538 of 2025 (M/S) Dinesh Luthra ….....Petitioner Versus ICICI Bank Ltd and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.1, through video conferencing. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the warrant of attachment of the immovable property dated 08.04.2025 issued by Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. The petitioner has also sought other related reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that his younger brother late Ajay Luthra had taken home loan of about Rs. 96,00,000/- from the ICICI Bank, Rishikesh Branch, in which Naveen Luthra, the another younger brother of the petitioner was the guarantor. The petitioner has nothing to do with the loan transaction of late Ajay Luthra, but it appears that late Ajay Luthra did make default in payment of loan. Therefore, the account was declared as non- performing asset. The property, which was mortgaged by late Ajay Luthra was co-owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner never gave any consent for mortgaging the property. Now, the respondent no.1/the Bank is attempting to illegally take possession of the four flats of the petitioner, out of which, two flats have already been sold by the petitioner in the year 2019, which is violative of the attachment order dated 08.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the attachment order dated 08.04.2025, of the Recovery Officer relates to 2 the property in Rishikesh, but the respondent no.1/Bank is trying to illegally take possession of the four flats of the petitioner situated in Dehradun. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/Bank would submit that the Bank has not issued any notice to take possession of any of the flats of the petitioner at Dehradun. She would submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order of the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the remedy lies under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“the Act”), and an appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal. 6. A property, which is attached by the attachment order dated 08.04.2025, is different. It is not the petitioner’s property. The petitioner is not claiming any right over it. What is claimed is that the respondent no.1/the Bank is trying to take illegal possession of the property of the petitioner situated in Dehradun, which has been rebutted by learned counsel for the respondent no.1/the Bank on the ground that no such notice has ever been issued by the Bank for taking possession of any of the flats in Dehradun. In fact, no material has been placed before this Court to that effect. 7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the attachment order dated 08.04.2025 of the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, definitely the remedy lies under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.06.2025 Ravi Bisht