2026:UHC:2145 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3508 of 2025 25 March, 2026 Abhishek Arora --Petitioner Versus Authorised Officer State Bank Of India & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shobhit Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Ms. Saumyata Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no.5- borrower. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Since the pleadings have been completed between the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally by this Court. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-Bank to hand over the possession of the secured asset purchased by the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser. 3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent no.5 had taken a Cash Credit Limit (CCL) from respondent no. 1-Bank in the year 2014. Since the account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by respondent no. 1, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs has become outstanding against respondent no. 5-borrower. Respondent no.1-Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act, 2026:UHC:2145 2 2002”) against the borrower, which resulted in handing over the secured asset to respondent no.1-Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Subsequently, the secured asset was auctioned, and the petitioner purchased that property in the auction on 31.01.2023. A sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner-auction purchaser on 16.02.2023. 4. Respondent no. 5-borrower filed an application (SA No. 316 of 2025) before the DRT, Dehradun, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the auction proceedings as well as the sale certificate. In the said proceedings, the petitioner-auction purchaser is appearing before the DRT, wherein the learned DRT has been pleased to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 29.01.2026. Before that, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondent no.1-Bank to hand over the possession of the secured asset to the petitioner- auction purchaser. 5. Respondent no.1-Bank has filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated by the respondent-Bank that the litigation between the parties is pending before the DRT, Dehradun, and further that the secured asset has been constructed in such a way that the same cannot be handed over to the petitioner-auction purchaser by the Bank, as the stairs go to the 1st and 2nd floors through the secured asset. Thus, the respondent-Bank has shown its inability to hand over the possession of the secured asset which has been purchased in the auction by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Bank is ready to return the money to the petitioner-auction purchaser for the reason that the Bank is unable to hand over the 2026:UHC:2145 3 possession to the auction purchaser for the aforesaid reason. 6. Respondent no.5-borrower has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the matter is pending adjudication before the DRT, Dehradun. 7. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5, and it has been stated that the Bank itself, on 10.10.2025, had allowed the petitioner-auction purchaser to take possession. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court is of the view that since the respondent-Bank is not in a position to hand over the possession to the petitioner-auction purchaser for the reason that the property which is purchased by the petitioner in the auction cannot be handed over to the petitioner in view of the peculiar structure of the building, as the stairs of the 1st and 2nd floors go through the secured asset, therefore, the respondent-Bank has prudently decided to return the money to the petitioner-auction purchaser along with 6% interest. Further, the lis between the parties is pending before the DRT, Dehradun; thus, no interference is warranted at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.03.2026 AK