UKHC010041892026 2026:UHC:7480 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/658/2026 The Nainital Bank Limited --Petitioner Versus Additional District Magistrate & Others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State. Ms. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2 & 3. (2) Nainital Bank Ltd. has challenged the order dated 22.12.2025, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that application seeking recall of the earlier order, passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the concerned Additional District Magistrate, filed by the borrower, was allowed only on the ground that borrower was not given any opportunity of hearing while passing such order. (3) Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, appearing for the petitioner, submits that under the scheme of SARFAESI Act, especially under Section 14 of the Act, there is no requirement of providing opportunity of UKHC010041892026 2026:UHC:7480 hearing. He relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s R.D. Jain and Co. V. Capital First Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2022, where it was held that powers under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act are ministerial in nature. Relevant observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment is extracted below: “Thus, we reiterate that the step to be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi- judicial function or application of mind would require. The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets.” (4) Thus it is apparent that District Magistrate is under no duty to give opportunity of hearing to the borrower, guarantor or other stakeholder. Thus the reason assigned for recalling the order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is set aside. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.8.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C9 1957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.08.20 17:39:49 +05'30' UKHC010041892026 2026:UHC:7480