Serial No. 13 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 3267/2023 CM 6846/2024 CM 7840/2023 M/S Pureweave Fashions Private Limited … Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Yawar Hussain, Advocate Vs. Managing Director and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Taniya, Advocate vice Mr. Abu Bakar Pandit, Advocate CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 04.03.2025 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the e-auction notice that has been served on 10.11.2023 to auction his property. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by way of a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of this petition, has stated that the petitioner has already preferred a case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Chandigarh, which is TSA No. 42/2022, which is still pending and has placed on record the order sheets passed in the said case before the DRT, commencing from 8-11-2023 till 9-10-2024. 3. This aspect of the case pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also been fairly shown, by reference to paragraph „G‟ of the grounds, Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.03.2025 where a fleeting reference is made to the case having been filed before the DRT. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) pertained to the challenge against the 13(4) notice, which was done before the property of the petitioner was taken into possession. Thereafter, the difference in the present case is that the possession has already been taken, and now the e- auction notice is being challenged by way of the instant petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that, as per judicial pronouncement of this Court, a writ petition against the SARFAESI proceedings can be maintained before this Court, and therefore, this petition is maintainable and deserves to be heard and decided. 5. The argument advanced put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is partially correct. As far as the judgment of this Court is concerned, whereby residents of J&K are permitted to file a writ petition against an order passed under the SARFAESI Act rather than prefer it before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the issue is no longer res integra. The said order was passed solely because there is no Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) which is operational in the Union Territory of J&K, and therefore, in order to obviate the hardship, the residents of J&K were permitted to challenge an order under the SARFAESI Act by way of a writ petition. 6. However, the facts in the present case are different. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) was not approachable to him. In fact, the proceedings under 13(4) have already been challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) with regard to Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.03.2025 the same property for which the present writ petition has been filed and the same was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Chandigarh. 7. Under the circumstances, in order to ensure that there is no duplicity of proceedings and the lack of conformity and confusion that may be created therefrom, the petitioner is given the liberty to prefer this action before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Chandigarh. 8. There is a distinction between the permissibility of filing the petition and the desirability of filing the petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be more appropriate and desirable that the cause of action and the subject matter be challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Chandigarh itself, where the main case challenging the 13(4) proceedings is already pending. 9. Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed with liberty as aforementioned. All orders passed earlier shall stand vacated by way of this order. However, the petitioner is granted seven days time to prefer the said course of action before the Chandigarh Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), till then the respondents are requested not to take any course of action. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 04.03.2025 “Mir Arif” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.03.2025