UKHC010119462026 2026:UHC:6053 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2080/2026 Kiran Sachdeva & Anr. --Petitioners Versus Punjab National Bank & Anr. --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. (2) Petitioners have challenged order dated 2.6.2026, passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun in SA No. 350 of 2024. Operative portion of the said order is extracted below: “23. In the light of above discussions, the applicant may submit representation before Ld. Authorized Officer concerned within a period of fifteen days from the date of judgment and the Ld. Authorized Officer concerned shall put up before Competent Authority for consideration. It is requested to the Ld. Competent Authority to consider amicably and if there is a possibility to grant any relief, to take action accordingly.” (3) Petitioners contend that they participated in a public auction and they were the highest bidder in respect of a property, which was auctioned by Punjab National Bank in proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Auction was reportedly held on 12.12.2019 and petitioners had offered ₹1,05,25,000 for purchasing a residential house, situate at Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar. Since petitioners deposited only ₹71,35,000 up to the last date i.e. 21.3.2020, therefore, the bank forfeited the amount deposited by petitioners. After four UKHC010119462026 2026:UHC:6053 years, petitioners approached Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing SA No. 350 of 2024, which was disposed of by the impugned order. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready to deposit the balance amount, if any, over and above the amount which they have deposited with Debts Recovery Tribunal. (5) Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the bank submits that the bid submitted by petitioners stands cancelled and the amount which they deposited has been forfeited because of non-compliance with the deadline indicated in the auction notice. He further points out that on petitioners’ request, time was extended by another 90 days to enable them to deposit the balance amount, but they did not deposit any amount even during extended time. He contends that if petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, then they have remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act (6) This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned Counsel for the respondents. Since petitioners have statutory remedy against the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.7.2026 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=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.20 18:27:09 +05'30' UKHC010119462026 2026:UHC:6053