WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 CM No. 5645/2025 Sheeraz Ahmad Thoker, Aged 41 years, S/o Ghulam Nabi Thoker, R/o Haffkhri, Shopian, Prop: M/s Ghulam Nabi Ali Mohammad …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Adv. Vs. 1. J&K Bank Ltd. Th. its Authorized Officer, Altaf Ahmad Ringshawl, Chief Manager, IAPM Incharge at Zonal Office, Pulwama. 2. Branch Manager, J&K Bank Ltd Branch Unit, Immam Sahib, Shopian. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE J U D G M E N T Per Shahzad Azeem, J 1. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality of e-Auction Notice dated 07.08.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 in respect of secured assets. 2. To be brief, the relevant facts for adjudication of present controversy are that the petitioner said to have availed a loan facility from respondent No. 2-Bank, sanctioned on 21st September 2023 in the form of cash credit (Apple) facility of Rs. 84.00 lacs against a primary security in the shape of hypothecation of stock of fruits and collateral security of registered mortgage in respect of land measuring 13 Kanals and 3 marlas situate at Heff Khuri, Tehsil Chitragam of District Shopian. Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 2 of 7 3. Appellant failed to maintain his loan account, as a result, same was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 19.09.2024 and, the secured creditor i.e., respondent-Bank initiated process for enforcement of its security interest under the relevant provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and thus issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 30.10.2024, whereby a demand to the tune of Rs. 86,59,071.00/- was raised, followed by Possession Notice under Section 13(4) dated 05.02.2025. 4. Petitioner states that he has challenged the demand notice dated 30.10.2024 by virtue of a writ petition WP (C) No. 2834/2024 and same is pending disposal before the Court. 5. The grievance of petitioner is that the respondents have issued e-Auction Notice dated 07.08.2025 without following the mandatory provisions of Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, that requires serving of a mandatory Redemption Notice of 30 days. According to the petitioner, the respondent-Bank in breach of mandate of Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act issued Notice of Redemption under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, (Rules of 2002), on 07.08.2025 itself i.e., simultaneously when e-Auction Sale Notice came to be issued. 6. It is also urged that no valuation of property has been done as per the law and rules, as such, his valuable right is violated. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shafqat Nazir, learned counsel for the respondents caused appearance and made a statement at bar that on the same cause of action, the petitioner has filed WP (C) No. 2834/2024, wherein the petitioner has been directed to deposit 50% of the due amount and further action pursuant to impugned notice was ordered to be deferred. However, petitioner failed to comply with the said order, resultantly as a compliance to the direction of the Court, the bank proceeded strictly as per the mandate of SARFAESI Act. 8. It has been further canvassed at bar that the bank has scrupulously followed the mandate of SARFAESI Act, however, it is the petitioner who failed to comply with the direction of the Court and in order to by-pass the requirement of depositing of 50% of amount so Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 3 of 7 ordered by the Court in the pending writ petition, he filed the instant petition, therefore, same is required to be dismissed. 9. Heard and considered. Perused the record. 10. Since the petition involves important point that whether during the pendency of first writ petiton on the same subject matter between the same parties, second writ petition is maintainable, particularly when the petitioner failed to comply with the order passed in the first writ petition, therefore, record is also called and parties are heard at the threshold. 11. In order to refresh the memory, we wish to place on record that petitioner had called in question e-Auction Notice dated 07.08.2025 on the ground that same is issued in contravention to the mandatory requirement of Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, in that prior notice of redemption of 30 days has not been issued, therefore, process of e- Auction is bad in law. 12. It is equally noteworthy that petitioner has stated in the memo of petition that the Redemption Notice issued by the respondents on 07.08.2025 i.e., on the same date when e-Auction Notice came to be issued, therefore, same does not fulfil the mandatory requirement of law as envisaged under Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act. 13. Another important point which needs consideration is that according to the petitioner, valuation of the property has also not been done as per the requirement of the SARFAESI Act, as such his statutory right is trampled with all impunity. 14. In order to ascertain the genuinity of the points raised by the petitioner, we rushed through the record produced by the learned counsel of the respondent-Bank. It appears that respondent-Bank has issued Notice for Redemption, under Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act on 13.05.2025 and same was duly communicated to the petitioner. Receipts and tracking reports are also on the record. 15. The record also contains the valuation of secured interest, which was got done through the approved Surveyor of the respondent- Bank. 16. In view of the above, the factual assertion raised by the petitioner flies in the face of record, in that, the petitioner despite being in Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 4 of 7 knowledge of issuance of Redemption Notice dated 13.05.2025 strictly in tune with Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act tried to hoodwink the court by believing that the Bank had issued the Redemption Notice on 07.08.2025, i.e., the date when the e-Auction Notice was issued and in this regard relied upon notice dated 07.08.2025 enclosed with the petition as Annexure-IV. Perusal of notice dated 07.08.2025, shows that it is not the Redemption Notice, rather an intimation to the borrower that the right of redemption of the secured assets already stand ceased, as the 30 days’ notice for redemption of property was served upon the borrower/mortgager and the 30 days period from the date of service of the said notice stands already elapsed. 17. In view of these startlingly facts, it appears that petitioner has concealed the facts and by making misrepresentation, made an abortive attempt to secure discretionary relief by invoking equitable jurisdiction of this Court. 18. At the same time, petitioner is also wrong in raising the plea that valuation of the property has not been done, whereas, the record reveals that the respondent-Bank has properly got the valuation of the mortgaged property done through the approved Surveyor of the Bank. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank had apprised during the course of proceedings that on the same subject matter petitioner has not only filed the writ petition which is pending disposal, but got the order from the Court, whereby the action pursuant to impugned notice therein was ordered to be deferred, but on the condition of deposit of 50% of the due amount, which has not been deposited. 20. Confronted with this factual position, we have also called the record of WP (C) No. 2834/2024 titled Sheeraz Ahmad Thoker vs. The J&K Bank Ltd. & Anr., perusal whereof reveals that the petitioner filed the writ petition on 03.12.2024, wherein he called in question Demand Notice dated 30.10.2024 and also remained successful in getting the interim relief vide order dated 31.05.2025, as same assumed importance, thus reproduced as follows: “Objections have been filed. Admit. Notice. Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 5 of 7 Notice waived by Mr. Shafqat Nazir, learned counsel on behalf of respondents. List for final consideration on 28th July, 2025. In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount due as on date, within a period of four weeks, further action pursuant to the impugned notice shall defer. We make it clear that in case the requisite amount is not deposited within a period of four weeks, the respondent-Bank shall proceed to dispose of the secured assets in accordance with law and shall submit a report in this regard to this Court on the next date of hearing.” 21. Despite the non-compliance of order dated 31.05.2025, petitioner instead of filing the appropriate application in the pending writ petition WP (C) No. 2834/2024 had mustered the courage to file instant writ petition that too without disclosing as to whether or not he complied with the order passed in the pending writ petition. 22. It is settled law that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and thus it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. If the petitioner withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in K. Jayaram vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., (2022) 12 SCC 815. 23. In K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 6 of 7 done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it”. 24. Again, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha Vs. State of UP reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 has reiterated that “a writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law”. 25. The petitioner in the case on hand not only concealed and distorted the facts, but also had shown non-compliance to the order of the Court and, therefore, ex-facie this circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit as contained in order dated 31.05.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 2834/2024, therefore, petitioner’s conduct being reprehensible on account of concealment, distortions and withholding of vital facts, thus same is required to be dealt with iron hands at the threshold. 26. Notwithstanding the above facts, the respondent-Bank has issued Notice of Redemption in conformity with Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act; the valuation of the secured asset has been got done through the approved Surveyor; and the petitioner though granted interim protection on the condition of deposit of 50% of due amount, but he failed to comply with the order of the Court. All these facts despite having direct bearing on the controversy on hand, petitioner failed to made honest disclosure of these vital facts, as such, same amounts to suppression of material facts and amounts to abuse of process of the court. 27. To conclude, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court which is discretionary in nature, therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the petitioner should approach the Court with clean hands and to disclose all the facts, whether in his favour or against him, conversely, the petitioner failed to comply with the condition of interim protection granted in pending writ petition WP(C) No. 2834/2024 vide order dated 31.05.2025, thus petitioner’s conduct is deplorable, as he plays hide and seek with the truth, cherry-picking facts to share or Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 WP (C) No. 2133/2025 Page 7 of 7 suppress at his discretion, as such, same amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the extra-ordinary, equitable and discretionary relief. 28. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the petition is marred by concealment and distortion of facts, in as much as the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands, accordingly, petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50.00 thousand to be deposited by the petitioner before the Registry in Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today, for which purpose the Registry shall maintain an index and in case the cost is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period of time, the Registry shall place the same before the Court for further orders. 29. Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated. 30. Record of WP (C) No. 2834/2024 be detached, while as, the record produced by the Respondents shall be returned to them through their counsel, with due dispatch. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 24.09.2025 Altaf Whether approved for reporting? Yes Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025