2026:UHC:4668 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1754/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Deepak Chandra and Mr. Pankaj Goswami, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the sale/e-auction proceedings pursuant to auction notice dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure 4) page no. 31 to 45 issued by respondent No. 2 in respect of the mortgaged property situated at Khasra No. 75 Min, admeasuring area 6800 Sq. Ft. (631.97) Sq. Mtrs.), Village Kamaluaganja Gaur, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to finalize/confirm the auction sale conducted on 20.05.2026 and not to create any third-party interest in the property in question. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondent bank to permit the petitioner to deposit/pay the entire outstanding loan amount within such period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. According to petitioner, as Director of Private Limited Company engaged in mining, petitioner gave personal guarantee for securing a loan of Rs.1.80 crore. Since loan could not be repaid, therefore, Canara Bank initiated recovery proceedings by invoking relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, 2026:UHC:4668 however, submits that secured asset was sold in public auction held on 20.05.2026 for Rs. 3.28 crore against reserved price of Rs. 2.31 crore and auction purchaser has deposited 25% of sale consideration through bank draft on 26.05.2026 and remaining amount was to be deposited by him within fifteen days, which is extendable upto 30 days. He thus submits that since third party right has now been created, therefore, only remedy available to petitioner would be to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that secured asset is worth more than Rs. 5 crore, therefore, it could not have been sold for Rs.3.28 crore. He raised various other contentions, including that petitioner is ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding amount to the bank. 6. Since third party right has now been created over the secured asset, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.06.2026 Mahinder/ 2026:UHC:4668