2026:UHC:3374-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.321 of 2026 5th May, 2026 M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises and Another -----Petitioners Versus Debt Recovery Tribunal Dehradun and Another ----Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal and Mr. Akshat Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Santanu Gaur, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Mr. B.S. Kathayat, learned counsel for the caveator. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun (respondent no.1 herein) to expedite the disposal of Review Application (R.A. No.6/23) filed by the petitioner seeking review of the main order passed on the Original Application of the respondent-bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention towards an order dated 22.01.2025 whereby DRT heard the parties on the review application and reserved the order. He has also placed before us the order 1 2026:UHC:3374-DB dated 21.04.2025 wherein it is recorded that the orders could not be delivered by the Presiding Officer as he remained busy in other judicial and administrative work. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that the petitioners are themselves seeking adjournments and were not present on various dates before the DRT. In support of his submission, he has placed before us order dated 14.04.2026/15.04.2026. 5. We have perused the said order and we find that the said order was passed stating that 14.04.2026 has been declared as holiday and, therefore, when the matter was taken up on the following date i.e. 15.04.2026, none of the parties were present. 6. In our opinion, since review application is still pending, therefore, it deserves to be decided. 7. Accordingly, we direct the DRT to decide the review application expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of communication of the instant order. 8. It is clarified that the direction aforesaid would not mean that we have expressed any opinion about the maintainability of the review application and, if any such question is raised before the DRT, the same shall be decided by DRT on its merits. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 2 2026:UHC:3374-DB 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 05.05.2026 SS 3 SUKHBANT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a 8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7 D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.05.06 16:27:33 +05'30'