IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8810 of 2026 Decided on : _03.06.2026 M/s Ethix Health Care ... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and 4/State. : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) For seeking the relief of quashing the order dated 7th April, 2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Sirmaur, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been in judicial custody since 18th April, 2025 and being the main partner is accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau and the bank accounts have been frozen. Indulgence of this Court thus is sought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. A perusal of the petition would go on to show that the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 26th September, 2025 (Annexure P-5) to the firm and its partner/guarantors, and that measures under Section 13(4) were to be initiated. The same was on the basis of an outstanding amount of Rs.1,21,22,106.71/-, as on 2nd September, 2025. Opportunity had been given, as such, to pay the said amount to the Bank within a period of sixty days from the date of the demand notice. 3. It is not disputed that the Bank has also initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount by filing an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the relevant Rules in this regard pertaining to the loan account. It is thereafter that proceedings under Section 13(4) were initiated and the District Magistrate was approached by filing the necessary application. 4. It is to be noticed that the District Magistrate has noticed that the necessary affidavit had been filed by the Authorized Officer and the procedure prescribed had been followed. In such circumstances, directions have been issued that possession of the secured assets, including the movable hypothecated assets, may be taken and handed over to the -3- Bank, and necessary police assistance, if required, be provided. 5. It is a settled principle that an alternative remedy lies before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act and it has also been mentioned in the petition that such remedy is available. There is nothing extraordinary, as such, for this Court to entertain the petition, especially when the outstanding amount is substantial, and nothing has been shown that the petitioner is in a position to clear the same, as he apparently is in judicial custody as well. 6. Resultantly, keeping in view the law laid down in M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another 2023 INSC 379, we do not entertain the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 3rd June, 2026 Tarun Singh